Diversion - Did Manchester Shrink in the Rain?

[Walkerdel]

Strange situation if true, seems like a case of "the computer says no."

26 March 2016

"Emirates A380 A6-EOP operating EK19 Dubai – Manchester diverted via London Heathrow this evening after going around three times at Manchester when the Flight Management System repeatedly warned that Manchester’s runways were too short to attempt to land on."

Emirates A380 A6-EOP EK19 London Heathrow Diversion. | Emirates News (http://www.theeksource.com/emirates-a380-a6-eop-ek19-london-heathrow-diversion/)

[PositiveClimbGearUp]

Would this be linked to calculated stopping distances on a wet runway?

[skridlov]

Watching a televised snooker tournament held in Manchester yesterday (mid-afternoon) the deafening click of the balls was drowned out by the sound of torrential rain hammering on the roof of the venue. Even for Manchester it sounded - and was remarked upon by the snooker whisperers - as if it was exceptionally heavy.

[Sir George Cayley]

Brake to Vacate. Maybe the magenta line went passed the runway end?

SGC

[Uplinker]

What is the A380's stopping performance?

A330 stops on a sixpence.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

It was nasty, but it passed through in 10-15 minutes, surprised they didn't hold for a bit.

[750XL]

Incident: Emirates A388 at Manchester on Mar 26th 2016, FMS decides runways too short (http://avherald.com/h?article=495fd1b1&opt=0)

better link.

Sounds like a glitch more than anything? Surely 10,000ft is enough

[White Knight]

It's plenty long enough - having landed 380s there many times myself on 23R and 05L in heavy rain; however with the BTV ROW/ROP system you may get a "runway too short" warning. Trouble is, even if it is a glitch in the system a Go Around is mandatory, and so on until diversion follows!!!

[White Knight]

So you divert, then the glitch in the system says you can not land at your alternative. Then what? Is a go around still mandatory?

At some stage you have to put that bird back on the ground.

Do the A380's not have an inflight performance section in the QRH?

I was keeping it simple as real pilots will get the general idea...

No. There is no performance section in the QRH...

I know it will stop on that runway. My colleagues know it will stop on that runway... Management will issue a Warning if a 'Too short' warning is ignored... It's all a Frying Pan V Fire kind of thing; however, once the Pan call is made after diversion is made and fuel potentially tight then an approach to land can be continued even if the 'glitch' reoccurs...

[ExDubai]

Let me get this straight. You are pilot on an A380. In a real airline that usually means you have seen the world, you have experience, you are well trained, and you possess some airmanship and decision making skills.

Now you approach a runway and the box says the runway is too short. You go around, better safe than sorry. Fair enough.

You then trouble shoot, you make your factored landing distance calculation (again), you find out that all is fine, it also matches your experience with regard to necessary landing distance, you make another approach, you are stable, you are on profile and on speed, all deceleration systems are working, and because the stupid box still says it is too short, you go around again and divert? WTF? :ugh:

Where have we arived in our industry when such pilots fly a flagship? WTF?
Very simple...rules are rules and as a EK Skipper you better follow them. That's how it is

[main_dog]

Says more about EK -and the direction our profession is going in general- than it does about the crew.

[6f1]

Very sad our industry has gone in this direction with no allowance for airmanship,we seem to be encouraged just to blindly follow SOP's.
Well done EK crew for following your SOP.

[ExDubai]

Very sad our industry has gone in this direction with no allowance for airmanship,we seem to be encouraged just to blindly follow SOP's.
Well done EK crew for following your SOP.
And if for whatever reason something goes wrong then crucify the Skipper?

[ManaAdaSystem]

Just a normal day in the office of a ME airline where airmanship has been replaced with fear and micromanagement of their flights.
It ranks right up there with some Asian airlines who can't fly visual approaches because they are not allowed to. So they crash trying to do the impossible.

What if something happened, indeed.

Fuel cost, on the other hand, seem not to be an issue. Three approaches then a diversion to LHR?
How much fuel do you take? Two hour holding+ ?
How much lighter would they have been with a normal fuel load?

[ExDubai]

ManaAdaSystem Why should that Skipper start and fight against the windmills? I know that the wale will stop on that runway, my former colleagues know it but is it worth to play Don Quixote and fight against the windmills? Most likely not..... So follow the SOPS and fight against the windmills when it is worth to do it...

[ManaAdaSystem]

I agree, but it is not a healthy way to run an airline.
I would be questioned as to why I did three approaches where I am.

[linedriva]

I really don't see an issue here - EK own the aircraft (or are financially responsible for it), and if they don't want you to land with a certain problem then that's their choice. As a Captain, if their choice was unsafe then you exert your authority - If their choice is safe, then go with it. It has nothing to do with whether you think the company is right or not - it's their train set. Your role is to ensure the aircraft, crew and passengers are safe - everything else is just window dressing.

[philbky]

If Emirates' SOP is for the crew to slavishly follow the computers come what may then they go on my no fly list. Airmanship should be #1 and airlines should train crew to fly the aircraft when the boxes can't or won't, make reasonable judgements based on circumstance and foster an environment where crews are known to be competant and trustworthy. Fly Dubai joined the list last week now Emirates....same culture, linked management.

[Richard J.]

So follow the SOPS and fight against the windmills when it is worth to do it...

It is worth doing it if otherwise you would alienate several hundred passengers who don't appreciate being diverted to an airport 200 miles away not because of a real safety issue but because of some company rule. If you're in a service industry such as an airline, customer satisfaction is YOUR problem.

[Council Van]

The machine says no but you have all ready done your landing performance and you also know that the runway is long enough from previous experience.

OK, go around, perhaps you have made a mistake but surley just run another set of landing performance on the EFB. Still not sure then ACARS the company and make sure you have not missed something and get them to check your perf calc.

But to fly round the hold for a while, try another couple of approaches then divert to come back 4 hours later to land on the same runway. That just seems like crazy SOP's to me.
If I ever become a real pilot perhaps I will work for an airline that is happy to just chuck money and customer goodwill away. For the time being I will concentrate on getting our customers to the correct destination on time.

[Hotel Tango]

Richard J

customer satisfaction is YOUR problem.

So you are suggesting that that the captain breaks a company rule for your benefit? So where exactly would that stop? And what would you be saying if, as the result of a Captain ignoring an SOP (not necessarily this one) a member of your family ends up as ash? Get real mate!

Council Van

If I ever become a real pilot

You won't with that attitude!

[msbbarratt]

We're there any other A380s landing at the same time?

Quick question from a none flyer: does the landing calculation take account of plausible equipment failures at awkward moments (burst tyre, or a break failure on touch down? Etc...) and would that be enough to explain why it thought that the runway was too short for those conditions?

[Check Airman]

Airmanship should be #1 and airlines should train crew to fly the aircraft when the boxes can't or won't, make reasonable judgements based on circumstance and foster an environment where crews are known to be competant and trustworthy. Fly Dubai joined the list last week now Emirates....same culture, linked management.

Why? Do you know something about the accident that the investigation has not yet revealed to the public?

[philbky]

Yes, that holding for two hours after a four and a half hour sector in bad weather when others are diverting to reasonably adjacent and acceptable alternates is very questionable both in terms of passenger comfort and safety and in terms of pressure on the crew when the obvious objective is to land at the planned destination come what may.

It is by no means a new phenomenon, nor has it always been management driven. The October 1965 Vanguard accident at Heathrow, is instructive. Diversions had been taking place for six or seven hours before that accident. I heard the crew talking to other BEA aircraft diverting as they made their way south and they were advised to divert. After holding and two unsuccessful attempts to land they were then encouraged by the successful attempt by another Vanguard.

ASN Aircraft accident Vickers 951 Vanguard G-APEE London Airport (LHR) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19651027-0)

[Check Airman]

Do you know why they crashed? I think it's wiser to withhold speculation and judgement until facts emerge.

[gtseraf]

sometimes it is a good idea to do what the company wants (divert), knowing full well that the other plan (landing) would work just as well.

The office residents/bean counters may need a nudge to realise that their rule from the desk mentality is not ideal. At worst, it is the company's money which is wasted, at best, it gets the message across and they change their rules.

I feel sorry for the customers, but they seem to have been forgotten in this mad scramble to make money/build empires, sometimes they seem to be viewed as muppets who are to be fleeced for as much as they can be fleeced, not valuable supporters who keep the company afloat :=

[Check Airman]

sometimes it is a good idea to do what the company wants (divert), knowing full well that the other plan (landing) would work just as well.

The office residents/bean counters may need a nudge to realise that their rule from the desk mentality is not ideal. At worst, it is the company's money which is wasted, at best, it gets the message across and they change their rules.My thoughts exactly. At a previous company, the cubicle dwellers came up with a stupid procedure regarding crew bags. When flights were delayed because crews started strictly following the procedure, things went back to the old way.

[Centaurus]

B777 of really big ME airline departs from base on fine day. During climb the expat captain switches of the FD for visual climb currency and then several minutes later turns the FD back on. Perfectly safe, keeps his hand in at flying without a FD.

The "event" is recorded via the QAR data beamed back to base. Captain is up for tea and no bikkies for the heinous crime of turning the FD off.:mad:

[Dan Winterland]

If you have RUNWAY TOO SHORT flashing at you in red on the PFD, you would have to be very brave to second guess it. If you aren't correct and there is a problem, it will be the end of your career at best, ruination and prison at worst.

[KTM300XC-W]

All these armchair quarter backs going on about how they should have done this or that and If they were there they'd show "The Man" blah blah blah. My question to them is, when was the last time you told your significant other to get stuffed and blatantly do something different than what they asked ? Exactly, and that just involved one person...you, never mind a number of people that represents a small town. Good job you guys/gals on your decision. As far as fears concerned, EK management would be nothing compared to a group of US lawyers on your back had you did something against an SOP which ended up hurting someone or worse. I have two goals when I fly.
1) not to become a Mayday episode.
2) if ever required, to be able to answer the first 2-3 questions correct at an inquiry.

[ManaAdaSystem]

This is what management by fear looks like in actual operations.
It removes common sense, and replaces it with blind adherence to SOP, even if it is stupid.

EK should stop flying the A380 into MAN since we now all know every landing dangerously close to the limit.

[falconeasydriver]

Sadly, this is merely reflective of the type of mindset that exists at management level in certain organisations.
The fact that this aircraft diverted in the circumstances it did will have come as no surprise to those who have lived and worked in that part of the world.
The idea and concept of airmanship has been enshrined in a generation of local aviators, who are now at management level, their opinion is the only one that matters, and their opinion revolves around the parrot like regurgitation and adherence to SOPs along with a zero tolerance policy to any deviation.
This in turn creates a mindset that is akin to safe-mode on your MAC or PC, essentially you do everything in a slow and deliberate fashion without ever extending your mental model to get the job done. The only time you would ever consider doing anything beyond your own personal safe mode is when your safety depends on it.
FWIW I'm sure Airbus will be receiving a invoice in due course for the cost of the diversion due to a defective system that rendered their aircraft incapable of landing in MAN habibi....

[Craggenmore]

This has nothing to do with management.

On the a380 below 500ft on approach, you respect any amber warning "IF WET:RWY TOO SHORT" like you would the STALL warning.

It's highlighted and boxed in the manufacturers FCOM, "...the flight crew must perform a go-around".

Above 500ft, the FMS landing system, BTV, bases the landing performance on the figures entered. These static figures will say landing distance OK (as we know EK have been landing 380's at MAN for years).

Below 500ft the landing system uses live flight, weather and a/c parameters; weight, speed, altitude, AC position and wind.

Therefore if you get a "........TOO SHORT" message, then the runway is, funnily enough TOO SHORT.

[falconeasydriver]

Craggy, based on Avherald my understanding is that all 3 GA's were performed above 500 AGL, which would suggest that either they didn't understand the system in the fashion you suggest? Or was it true that it was a training flight with two training Captains onboard? In which case, nothing would surprise me to be honest :}

[philbky]

Craggenmore, whatever the boxes may say, the FACT is neither runway at Manchester at 10000ft and 10007ft is too short as has been demonstrated many, many times. It is TOTALLY due to management which would prefer to rely on boxes rather than experienced humans. True, humans are fallible but in this instance where the facts of the runway length are incontravertible and there was a cross wind seemingly within limits, airmanship should have sperceded management dictats and a faulty computer.

[philbky]

This morning 3xA380s have diverted to MAN from LHR in conditions worse than EK found as storm Katie hit SE England. None had difficulty.

[kumul1]

Too clarify what Craggenmore stated.
The system is designed to notify you that during your approach, and for some unknown reason, be it environmental or handling or other, and the clever black boxes see that you are not going to touch down in the touch down zone and pull up safely, then a Go Around should be performed.
It is a tool to prevent continuing after a potential unstabilised approach.

[Flap62]

I am constantly surprised by some of the replies on this thread. Either the mojority of posters are cowboys who fly around thinking their superior skills and airmanship over-rule everything or they are Microsoft sim clowns.

It has been said but to summarise - it's the companies train set, they make the rules. Doesn't matter if you don't agree with them. The crew followed these rules (a go around from a warning is not an SOP, it's a rule-there is a difference) diverted and a safe landing resulted. If, by following a rule, a safe landing is not assured (warning on finals on minimum fuel when landing performance suggests sufficient stop margin) then airmanship comes into play and the crew can make a decision on a safe course of action. These are two very different sets of circumstances.

[kumul1]

Council Van, performance data has nothing to do with it. The runway is long enough and there fore an approach has commenced. This system is a dynamic assessment of your energy/altitude/speed and a bit more to notify you wether you can land and stop in the given distance. An excessive tailwind on finals is capable of triggering the system.
If you diverted to another longer runway with no excessive tailwind and were on profile, then you will not trigger the system.

[His dudeness]

I am constantly surprised by some of the replies on this thread. Either the mojority of posters are cowboys who fly around thinking their superior skills and airmanship over-rule everything or they are Microsoft sim clowns.

Flew an approach to then relatively new airport at Athens in a CJ1 - VFR, daytime. At about 700ft AGL the GPWS went wild and blared Pull up Go Around.

Looking out of the huge windows and verifying with RDR ALT, DME/ILS GP and my eyeballs I was fine, I continued against our SOPs.

I´m a cowboy, I admit it.

Ever seen children of the magenta ?


BTW, turned out to be a database issue

[donpizmeov]

Eppy, that's not even the system that caused the problem.

No bent metal and already on page 3. So much wasted talent with all these experts out there. I can't see there ever being a pilot shortage.

[Flap62]

Well done you.

Incidentally our company SOPs would allow you to continue in those circumstances.

Happy for you to level an accusation of "child of the magenta" against me. With a couple of thousand hours military fast jet and over 10,000 hours heavy civil I'm reasonably comfortable with my level of airmanship.

[flydive1]

Flew an approach to then relatively new airport at Athens in a CJ1 - VFR, daytime. At about 700ft AGL the GPWS went wild and blared Pull up Go Around.

Looking out of the huge windows and verifying with RDR ALT, DME/ILS GP and my eyeballs I was fine, I continued against our SOPs.

I´m a cowboy, I admit it.

Ever seen children of the magenta ?


BTW, turned out to be a database issue

If I remember correctly there was a notam warning about false GPWS false warning at Athens.

It was caused by the database not yet updated and still showing a hill that was "shaved".

A slightly different situation.

[aox]

But to fly round the hold for a while, try another couple of approaches then divert to come back 4 hours later to land on the same runway. That just seems like crazy SOP's to me.

Well, to begin with the aircraft thinks it's too heavy to fit on the runway length. After a few hours it will be lighter, but then it will also have less fuel available for diversion.

Just kidding ...

The weather can also have improved.

[RAT 5]

Below 500ft the landing system uses live flight, weather and a/c parameters; weight, speed, altitude, AC position and wind.

Interesting. There is another topic about what wind to sue for landing; the tower AC wind of the FMC wind. (First Officer's Crosswind limitations - in Tech Log) The overall consensus was Tower wind. Now this situation seemed to be created by FMC wind at 500'. That doesn't seem consistent with what the rest of us would do without this magic box of tricks. We'd use Tower wind and ignore 'an inconvenient truth'. However, especially with such unequivocal SOP's, when there's doubt there is no doubt.
It was mentioned that if a crew disobeyed the G/A SOP it would be tea no biscuits at mission control. If that were the case I'd not be surprised if the crew were grounded at destination and could not even fly back to base. Hero to zero in a blink of an OFDM.

[kumul1]

Cheers Council Van.
At the end of the day, it's another tool in the tool box. Whether you decide to use it is up to you but if you do, then there are SOP's that come with it. In this case a Go Around if you get a particular warning.
The crew did the right thing.

[EK380]

PULL APRT NAV and the problem is gone. FCOM recommends to do so for spurious warnings.

As long as you make sure the LDPA is checked, one does NOT need the ROW/ROP and BTV to land an A380!

In the end, that is what they did on the way to LHR... A bit late, if you ask me. But then again, I wasn't there!

[seen_the_box]

Craggenmore, whatever the boxes may say, the FACT is neither runway at Manchester at 10000ft and 10007ft is too short as has been demonstrated many, many times. It is TOTALLY due to management which would prefer to rely on boxes rather than experienced humans. True, humans are fallible but in this instance where the facts of the runway length are incontravertible and there was a cross wind seemingly within limits, airmanship should have sperceded management dictats and a faulty computer.

I don't fly the A380; merely smaller Airbii. However, if what Craggenmore wrote about BTV is correct, I don't see that the crew had a choice if everything happened as is being reported here. If you get an amber or red message on your PFD, you had better be bloody sure what you're doing if you decide to disregard it.

To give an example to illustrate the point: an incident happened here a while ago where a crew ignored a REACTIVE windshear warning (WINDSHEAR aural callout and WINDSHEAR in red on PFD), because in their opinion no actual windshear condition existed. In the debrief, it turned out that the windshear warning was absolutely correct, and the aircraft had ended up in a low energy state. As I said, you have to be absolutely sure what you're doing before you start disregarding amber or red messages on your PFD.

[MrSnuggles]

As a mere SLF who cares about my life, I'd rather have the crew divert and try somewhere else. The A380 is huge and extremely complex, and if winds and rain makes the runway unsafe for landing things could go very wrong. Such a big plane just wouldn't stop on a penny.

Yes, yes, why take orders from a computer and following rules and SOP's - well, in this particular case I don't think anyone knows (yet). Wind angles, rain conditions, number of pax, weight of cargo, all things considered it was calculated that the stopping distance was not enough for that particular plane on that particular evening. As SLF I absolutely respect that the pilots move on to next place, hopefully with a longer runway. I surely would not want to end up in a burning wreck some 100 metres overrun with my laptop on fire.

Nah, I'll choose a slight annoyance over a life-or-death-situation any day.

[atakacs]

does anyone have any idea WHY the automation reported the runaway as too short ? System error / failure (I find it unlikely that if there was such a bug in the A380 software it would not have poped up earlier) ? Bogus data feed ?
Just a thought - does EK do tankering (I guess not but maybe that bird was heavier that one might think) ?

[Aluminium shuffler]

Yes, EK tanker fuel. I don't think it is done on UK sectors, though, at current prices. But if they were likely carrying a fair bit extra for weather, which would seem to be the case if they could do three apps before diversion, that extra fuel could conceivably have put them over landing weight. That is a real double edged sword with contaminated (rather than wet) runways; carrying the extra to allow for runway clearance or holding in a big queue at an alternate or needing a further alternate can put you overweight, while going min fuel could get you in, but holding to burn of fuel could see a runway window close on you as the contamination builds up again but you no longer have the fuel for the further alternate. It can be a juggling act in some cases.

[Jwscud]

I'm sure we've all had situations where the tailwind at 500ft on the FMS/ND shows out of limits and the tower is reporting calm winds or similar. I assume the software design made the assumption that winds below 500ft were fairly representative of the landing conditions and decided to be conservative in triggering the warning...

[staircase]

What no one has mentioned or they have missed is the insurance company.

I sat through a Health and Safety day at my present employer and the instructor said the following;

‘apart from anything else you may learn today, a major reason your company is providing you with this course is to stop the insurance company welching out of any subsequent claim’

I can’t help but think that this sort of mentality results in, shall we say slavish, adherence to the SOP.

I can not therefore 'blame' either the management or the crew

[philbky]

Just reading back through a number of posts, what many here seem to be overlooking is that EK run two A380s a day into MAN. Average pax load factors are in excess of 90%, EK being the first of 3 Gulf carriers to exploit the local market. Manchester has a reputation, not totally deserved, for rain and wind. Contrary to early reports, the wind was 30 degrees off the nose to port at 200 degrees, 17 kts, gusts to 27kts for the first two attempts. For the third attempt it was bang on the nose at 230 degrees at 17kts. At all times the runway was wet, but it is grooved and was in no wetter state than on any other wet late winter/early spring evening. This morning's three LHR A380 diversions faced wind at between 14kts and 16kts from between 310 to 340 degrees with an equally wet runway 05 in use. The EK episode was so obviously a computer glitch it is surprising the crew and ops could not work it out.

[lapp]

So this must be the other Emirates flight into MAN today? Stopped on a dime
https://youtu.be/ciotIjiriyY

No problems for Virigin either
https://youtu.be/-mYFvh9cO8Q

[ExDubai]

None of the critical spirits here are talking of the first go around, no issue with that, you better take your time when the warning hits you cold.

However, it's interesting to hear that in some companies SOP's have to be strictly followed even in case you could clearly establish that the system is malfunctioning. Children of the magenta also comes to my mind.

Man where have we gotten in this industry...

Good question, but was it really a malfunction ?

Think about a fully loaded plane with litte bit of extra fuel for holding etc., lets say around 390 t. Heavy rain and in the final calculation the System is using the actual conditions for recalculation based on contaminated runway. If you add now some tailwind to that recipe, you might end up with an runway to short warning.

Edit: Even Chuck Yeager would be amazed about the number of "Top Gun User" in this Thread.

[Angel`s Playmate]

411A would have loved this thread...

" I was already in the pub in MAN, while the 380 chaps were still in the Hold, trying to figure out what Alfons Au Revoir was up to, after I landed my L-1011 with the reassuring words from my Flight Engineer. " You can do this ". So I did ...."

[Banana4321]

411A would have loved this thread...

" I was already in the pub in MAN, while the 380 chaps were still in the Hold, trying to figure out what Alfons Au Revoir was up to, after I landed my L-1011 with the reassuring words from my Flight Engineer. " You can do this ". So I did ...."lol lol :D

So very true...

[AtomKraft]

Slavish adherence to the rules is perfect......for people without any ability or sense.

The SOPs are great, most of the time, but this modern culture of writing a rule for everything, and then kicking anyone's ass who doesn't strictly comply is, imho, better suited for ground based activities.

In this case, after the first GA, what was to stop the crew making an independent performance calculation, concluding that their system had gone TU, and then landing?

I'm not suggesting that they just say 'disregard that, we operate to here and we're sure it's fine', then slapping it down.

There should be a place for the careful and diligent crew derived decision.

But there isn't.

[Marcellus Wallace]

ROW/ROP uses DRY and WET predictions based on maximum braking from an auto land with the WET considering maximum reverse thrust.

The system doesn't know the runway conditions. (e.g.. snow/contaminated/slush/standing water/ice).

ROW/ROP can be erroneous if the database (OANS) length is corrupted or shortened by NOTAM and actual LDA is longer than the database or if the airplane position is erroneous, if the IRS was drifting, or declared threshold was wrongly coded in the database hence displacing the the 3 deg path.

Maximum braking......

[olster]

The devil is always in the detail. There are a lot of technical inaccuracies in this thread. Without going into the specific detail of ROW / ROP, the ignoring of a 'Runway too short' message would be inadvisable on many different levels. It is easy to be an expert from your armchair.

Cheers

[Check Airman]

411A would have loved this thread...

" I was already in the pub in MAN, while the 380 chaps were still in the Hold, trying to figure out what Alfons Au Revoir was up to, after I landed my L-1011 with the reassuring words from my Flight Engineer. " You can do this ". So I did ...."

Reading that just made may day! Sure wish he'd have stayed around a bit longer!

[philbky]

ExDubai, read my post #60. The wind speeds and directions are actuals for the approch times. There was no tailwind and other flight landed normally.

[ACMS]

Wow I can't wait for the A350's to arrive in my outfit..........

Now, I would go around after the first warning, both of us would carryout an independent landing distance assessment using conservative figures ( low A/B, No Rev, Wet Rwy ) double check the LDA was correct, obtain braking action reports if possible, let other Aircraft land first........then if it happened again on the next approach fully brief that we will LAND.

Airbus make a similar statement regarding predictive windshear false alarms, "if the commander judges that the warning is false and the reactive windshear is serviceable it may be disregarded"

So I'd use that common sense approach in this situation as well.

Now having said all that I do not know EK's policy or indeed AB policy regarding this system......so I can't really comment on their particular situation except to say that they landed safely, so we'll done.

[Craggenmore]

ACMS,

Now having said all that I do not know EK's policy or indeed AB policy regarding this system......so I can't really comment on their particular situation

I posted it earlier. If an amber, "IF WET: RWY TOO SHORT" .......or a red," RWY TOO SHORT" message appears during finals the pilot MUST go around. It is highlighted and boxed in the FCOM. Must is MANDATORY.

It is SOP to pull the systems Reset button to deactivate the ROW/ROP/BTV only if the runway lengths differ by more than 35m from database to chart. Whether you'd want to contact company (who'd then probably have to contact Airbus) to get dispensation to pull the reset button based upon your calculations showing a successful outcome is a tricky one. 1989 springs to mind when I hear the word 'dispensation' so this problem is nothing new.

With regard to 411A and his love of English beer, rightly or wrongly, the days of one-man bands flying close to the edge are by and large over. Airline legal departments and civil lawyers don't stand for it.

You can already hear the words being spoken at the Board of Enquiry. "Mr 380 captain, you ignored two warnings, one amber and one red yet proceeded to land and caused an end state with 527 souls on board. What was your justification?"

"I thought the system at fault and a Dash 8 and a 319 ahead of me managed to land without problem."

[bugged on the right]

Thank God I'm out of it, this thread demonstrates very clearly what the job has now become. It would appear that it is now possible to have 2 FOs on the flight deck, perhaps one more senior to the other. He can be the commander. All that money for captains not now required, just a small loading for initiating checklists.

[Good Business Sense]

... so what if the warning had occurred again at Heathrow and any subsequent approach ????

[Teevee]

Even an SLF can work out that if he HAS to land he can land and he is in the clear! Even an SLF can understand that if he lands in contravention of SOP's he could end up walking home. Assumptions of a computer glitch are just that .. assumptions. Apollo 13 Mission Control assumed they had a computer glitch ... so I believe did Air Transat. And that's not to mention Sod's Law which would probably have seen him ignore the computer warning and find a bird right where it shouldn't have been ... thus not putting a nail in a career but positively screwing down the lid ....

[ahmetdouas]

well if that happens and its still messing up on the approach to LHR you speeddial a conference call between the CEO, the chief pilot, the chief lawyer, and the chief insurance representative ;) and vote on how to proceed!

no seriously this is getting out of hand, it is a landing on 3000 meter runway with no systems faults except the landing calculations!

[TURIN]

... The wind speeds and directions are actuals for the approch times. There was no tailwind and other flight landed normally.

Out of interest, I was informed that an A320 landed, after the A380 go arounds, carrying an extra 20kt IAS. I'm guessing for increased control authority and gust protection, my point is how much extra speed would an A380 add to the approach and would that be enough, all things considered, to trigger the "Runway too Short" warning?

Just curious.

[dofus]

Straight from the FCOM :

ROW is armed below 500 ft until the aircraft touches down, independently of the braking means chosen by the flight crew (i.e. autobrake, or pedal braking), when ROW detects the landing runway.
L2 In basic autobrake mode or pedal braking, ROW detects the landing runway between 500 ft and 300 ft RA.
If the flight crew selects BTV autobrake mode, the BTV function detects the landing runway at 300 ft. The BTV function performs a late detection of the landing runway in order to favor the landing runway selected by the flight crew as long as possible.
L1 ROW detects a possible runway overrun when the aircraft is in flight, considering different parameters such as the aircraft weight, the aircraft speed, the aircraft altitude, the aircraft position, the wind.
If ROW detects a possible runway overrun, ROW activates aural and visual alerts to inform the flight crew of the situation.
ON WET RUNWAY
ROW computes two lines: I.e. one WET line and one DRY line. These lines correspond to the minimum landing distance for a WET runway and for a DRY runway.
The flight crew uses the appropriate line as reference depending on the actual runway condition, i.e. dry or wet.
ROW informs the flight crew via a visual alert on the PFD IF WET : RWY TOO SHORT , meaning that if the runway is WET, the landing distance computed by ROW is too long.

CAUTION:
If the runway is WET, and "IF WET: RWY TOO SHORT" is displayed on the PFD, the flight crew must perform a go-around.
In the case of a dry runway, the flight crew can continue the landing.
PFD: IF WET RWY TOO SHORT

[dofus]

Straight from the SOP's :

e to: ALL except MSN 9815
OANS
OANS RUNWAY LENGTH Vs CHARTS RUNWAY LENGTH CROSSCHECK
If the difference between the runway length from OANS and the runway length from charts is more than 35 m (115 ft), the flight crew must not use BTV autobrake mode. To avoid any intrusive ROW/ROP alert during final approach and landing, the flight crew should consider to pull the ARPT NAV reset button on the overhead panel. If the flight crew pulls ARPT NAV reset button, ROW/ROP BTV functions are inoperative.
RUNWAY SHIFT AS RQRD
PF
The flight crew must shift the runway threshold and/or the runway end, as required (e.g. due to NOTAM).
L2 BTV locates the dry and wet lines according to the runway threshold and to ensure that the flight crew will select an achievable runway exit
The dry and wet lines computation takes into account the FMS predicted landing weight of the aircraft. If the FMS predicted landing weight of the aircraft is not avail, BTV uses the current aircraft weight limited by the MLW.
ROW/ROP needs the real position of the runway end to ensure the aircraft protection against runway excursion.
Ident: PRO-NOR-SOP-160 00022721.0004001 / 06-Jun-11
Criteria: T73183, T78703
Applicable to: MSN 9815
OANS
RUNWAY SHIFT AS RQRD
PF
The flight crew must shift the runway threshold and/or the runway end, as required (e.g. due to NOTAM).
L2 BTV locates the dry and wet lines according to the runway threshold and to ensure that the flight crew will select an achievable runway exit
The dry and wet lines computation takes into account the current weight of the aircraft (i.e. not the predicted landing weight).
ROW/ROP needs the real position of the runway end to ensure the aircraft protection against runway excursion.
Ident: PRO-NOR-SOP-160 00020718.0004001 / 05-Aug-14
Criteria: 22-8006, 42-8020, T73183, T78703
Applicable to: ALL
BTV
The use of the BTV autobrake mode is recommended in the case of dry or wet runway conditions.
CAUTION:
Do not use BTV in the case of:
Contaminated runway
Any reverse inoperative, or in the case of any aircraft failure affecting landing performance.

[ACMS]

Simple system I see, so unlike Airbus........:eek:

[ciderman]

Thank God I'm out of it, this thread demonstrates very clearly what the job has now become. It would appear that it is now possible to have 2 FOs on the flight deck, perhaps one more senior to the other. He can be the commander. All that money for captains not now required, just a small loading for initiating checklists.

Well said. Me too. Doesn't the Captain have absolute responsibility for the aircraft and it's contents? What happens if there is nowhere to go that you will NOT get a warning?

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Reminds me of the old joke:

Captain on PA: Ladies and Gentlemen I'm afraid the Nr 4 engine has failed. Our flight will be delayed by an hour ...

Sometime later:

Captain on PA: Ladies and Gentlemen I'm afraid the Nr 3 engine has failed. Our flight will be delayed by another hour ...

Sometime later:

Captain on PA: Ladies and Gentlemen I'm afraid the Nr 2 engine has failed. Our flight will be delayed by another hour ..

One Pax to another: It's to be hoped the other engine doesn't fail otherwise we'll be up here all day ... !!!

:)

[Airfrance7]

Will the same situation occur at BHX with a Runway Max of 10013 FT? We could have A380's flying in all directions if the weather turns for the worst...!

[Flap62]

For whatever reason this was pretty much a one off. The 380 is a Cat c aircraft (unlike the Jumbo!) and has fantastic brakes so landing performance isn't really an issue usually.

[beardy]

This appears to have been a safe decision, nobody died, what's the problem?

[Hotel Tango]

Will the same situation occur at BHX with a Runway Max of 10013 FT? We could have A380's flying in all directions if the weather turns for the worst...!

They'll be having fun with crosswinds most of the time! :)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

A380 only has reverse on the inner engines, though. 74 has it on all 4.

[donpizmeov]

Shaggy,

380 lands at 390t, 744 takes off at 400t. Not sure those 2 reverses matter too much.

[sAx_R54]

@Flap62

cowboys who fly around thinking their superior skills and airmanship over-rule everything

How easy it is for pprune to make a non-event an event! As the wisdom of D.P.Davies might have put it, 'The only system that can survive, therefore, is one which spells out in detail all operating procedures and insists on their application through a very high level of personal and crew discipline'. So Bravo to the A380 pilots who maintained the SOP's and Bravo to @Craggenmore for leaving zero doubt with concise elucidation!

[glofish]

Although I can follow the reasoning about adhering religiously to sops and not getting in the way of any management stooge, let’s summarise what is described and agreed:

A perfectly airworthy aircraft made an approach to an airport with adequate runway length, the weather within limits for the operation and the crew qualified. During the approach an automated warning sounded that implied a go-around, apparently before the system design would normally trigger it. They went into a holding and assessed the situation, then tried a second approach with the same outcome. No attempt with disabling the particular warning system and using alternate methods was made. Finally they diverted.

Did I get anything wrong?

[helen-damnation]

Yes!

It did not imply a go-around, it REQUIRED a go-around.

[donpizmeov]

Wow glofish, only took you 5 pages to catch up. I am guessing you also know what information MCC gave this crew as well right?

[glofish]

It seems difficult to detect sarcasm!

I repeat myself when saying that reading comprehension must have been taken out of pilots assessment, or the ME Puniverse seems to get to some of us ....

[lurkio]

Maybe if you are as tired as is being stated in other parts then it is the safest and least career limiting decision to follow SOPs and not make it up as you go along.
Good call all round.

[Super VC-10]

so what if the warning had occurred again at Heathrow

Divert to Stansted?

[pax britanica]

Not arguing about the crew obeying letter of law-they have no choice.
But SOPs do not just exist in the airline industry but all over the place. they are of course laid down to protect customers/passengers are n't they.

Well yes sort of but they are mostly their to protect management who because theyare management mean they can never be wrong but also they cannot be everywhere at once . Thus the SOPs protect them while leaving plenty of leeway to blame the operatives/crew.

In this case captain realises the caution is meaningless and there is ample room to land- tries it, screws up is crucified.

Or captain obeys caution and sticks to rules and diverts but Oh dear the diversion airfield has a shorter runway, plane goes off the end , captain gets crucified, should have used discretion and landed at first airport .

Very hard for you guys up front these days especially working in blame focussed cultures

[Marcellus Wallace]

The crew did what they did based on what they saw that day.

If the plane could not land at the destination nor alternate then someone stuffed up the flight planning - dispatching above the RTOW which more than likely was MLW (Structural) limited.

On any given day you should have 40% more runway than a maximum performance stop on dry and another 15% margin on a wet runway.

Yes test pilot figures some will say but the humble line drivers have the 6-7 seconds from 50 feet to touchdown plus 15% which is achievable...unless you float or hold off for a kisser.

These should definitely fit into the test pilot figures with a reduced margin. The ROW/ROP differs in that it calculates an auto land so slightly longer flare but the similarity is the MAX BRAKING.

More to the story than what's on AV Herald. Irrespective if you had x or y margin, classic airplane with or without RAAS/ROW/ROP you'd be crucified if you went off the end.

1st GA - justified, rest I can't judge yet without the full story but have an idea.

[Monarch Man]

Helen


It did not imply a go-around, it REQUIRED a go-around.

Im just wondering how they have managed to land in AKL with 2300m or so of LDA at the moment at close to MLW all this time? Given of course MAN is considerably longer.

[helen-damnation]

Presumably because they didn't get the warning!!!!!

[Monarch Man]

So then Helen, it would appear "resilience" isn't a term well understood on the wunderbus? Again the reason I say this is based on the plethora of various notes about "spurious" RAAS and BTV warnings all across the network, surely given the rather large quantity in effect there must have been at least a dozen or so similar incidents resulting in diversions etc. What makes MAN so special? or different for that matter, that is what intrigues me.

[donpizmeov]

This would be the first ROW incident that I would be aware of Moanarch. There have been several ROP activations in the past. But as you know that's a completely different thing. BTV is of course yet another completely different system, as I am sure you are aware.

[Wrist Watch]

News from AVH:

Emirates' press office stated, the three go-arounds were made due to weather.

(...)

Passengers reported the crew announced a computer glitch as cause for the go-arounds.

[Monarch Man]

This would be the first ROW incident that I would be aware of Moanarch. There have been several ROP activations in the past. But as you know that's a completely different thing. BTV is of course yet another completely different system, as I am sure you are aware.

Donald, you'd be wrong, I am pig ignorant of the wunderbus and its ROW functions, I wrongly assumed that ROP ROW etc etc was one in the same, moreover, it's the reason I asked the question in the first instance given that surely if the automation isn't doing what you need from it, you switch it off. So, can it be switched off in the event of a PET de ce?
How does one ensure that the ghost in the machine won't ruin your day?

[Piltdown Man]

This is marvellous news. To hear that the Flight Ops Dept. of some of my competition has such enlightened views is music to my ears. I hope they get even more retentive.

PM

[donpizmeov]

It was totally my mistake Monach. Sorry about that. I just assumed you must have had some knowledge of the system before slating your colleagues resilience.

[Monarch Man]

After asking a close neighbour Donald, who BTW is also a wunderbus chap, he is baffled as the resilience that you speak of is based in no small part on a computer with a French mindset....

[eduelp]

I am not going to judge the captain on his decision here.

However, the aviation industry is headed nowhere good if we have come to this point.

[RAT 5]

However, the aviation industry is headed nowhere good if we have come to this point.
This is not aimed at a specific type of a/c, but a general comment on what we can expect from future computer systems. In early 1980's LNAV/VNAV glass cockpits were introduced and is now standard even flight school single propellor a/c. Thus I expect this land/no land system will be standard on airliners in 10 years.
What do you do if, at destination. it says you can not land. SOP says you divert. You arrive at ALTN, shorter runway, and it says you can not land, but fuel says you are going to sooner rather than later. You are now in a worse situation than you were originally when your GUT instinct said plonk it on terra firms, but SOP said you will be summoned if you do.
Where has Captaincy gone? Why have one if all trained monkeys are the same?

[RVF750]

Careful, you'll give them ideas...

[glofish]

Where has Captaincy gone?

It didn't make it into the modern Puniverse.

[fab777]

Company culture is not the same at every airline, for the bette or the worst. I believe that, would this happen to most of the A380 operators, we would have a couple of go-arounds, some head-scratching, some LDA calculation, and a landing at destination. Report filed, problem investigated by the manufacturer and eventually solved.

Looks like the company culture at EK does not allow this.

[lurkio]

RAT5. In 10 years time there will be at least 1 airfield with a runway 5km long within 1.5 hours of anywhere. If the system says NO LAND then G/A, select the ALTN page and the GoTo prompt and confirm. Select APPR and 2nd A/P and sit back, relax and give the dog next to you a treat for not biting you when you touched something.

[lurkio]

Lighthearted reply over I still think the crew did the right thing. Many moons ago a colleague used to finish his emergency brief with the line "and then we will take the least career limiting option". This is what they seemingly did and who can blame them. You may not completely agree but if the train set owner says do that then you do it unless a greater emergency exists AND you can justify it.

[Craggenmore]

Thanks for the link Council Van.

I think AvHerald added one zero too many. "1300 feet". More like 130 feet which would mean that this thread can now be closed.

[ManaAdaSystem]

I think AvHerald added one zero too many. "1300 feet". More like 130 feet which would mean that this thread can now be closed.

Meaning they would all have died if they had completed the landing?
They took the only option open to them as EK would have made them pay if they did not.
This flight is very similar to the FZ that crashed. Both took off with lots of fuel. Both did multiple approaches. This flight diverted after three (!) go arounds, and I suspect the FZ flight would have done the same if things did not go bad during the second approach.
Pressure to get in. And pressure not to land even if you know you can.

The ME is a weird and dangerous world.

[MrSnuggles]

Video of the 2nd go around:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MQnIa9z29k

[Landflap]

Funny old world Manada : In my day, some times, there was pressure on landing even if you knew you shouldn't ! Again, we have bought this insanity on ourselves. We have handed over Command Authority to the bean counters. Did so quite a while ago, actually. Reap the results ! Sit back, press the buttons & take the money. Not a bad job actually !

[Capt Scribble]

Correct Landflap, its not the Capt's problem that the aircraft and its pax end up in the wrong place. Off to the hotel for a sleep whilst the company sorts out the mess it brings on itself.

[jack schidt]

2 senior EK pilots who both are excellent operators (know them personally). Not standing up for them here but, if the aircraft is telling you not to land at the current airfield, company procedures (and tech info) state that a diversion is the best possible consideration, fuel is not an issue and is paid for by the company.......then why not do what the company pays you to do, follow their rules! Do what you are paid to do and let the company worry about either the technical issues, company policy or otherwise.

The crew did what they were told (paid) to do to get paid their salary and that's exactly what good pilots would do, simple, straight forward, end of..


J

[ManaAdaSystem]

So this was good airmanship?
That can only mean every landing with an EK A380 in MAN when it's wet and windy is a very risky enterprise.
So why continue to fly this aircraft into MAN when it is clearly unsuitable for the airport?

[philbky]

That can only mean every landing with an EK A380 in MAN when it's wet and windy is a very risky enterprise.
So why continue to fly this aircraft into MAN when it is clearly unsuitable for the airport?

I trust the above was written in sarcasm. Years of operation of the type on both runways in all weathers and the physical details of the runways show that not to be the case.

As any rational review of the circumstances would show, this was a computer malfunction followed by a decision to follow SOPs either by the crew alone or under direction from Ops.

[donpizmeov]

Poor Mana. On one thread he is discussing if his little Boeing will ALT capture the MCP altitude in a go around, and here he makes statements about a professional crew....seems a bit duplicitous.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Poor Mana. On one thread he is discussing if his little Boeing will ALT capture the MCP altitude in a go around, and here he makes statements about a professional crew....seems a bit duplicitous.

This is the attitude of Emirates A380 pilots?
Airmanship is related to the aircraft size? Or type?

Lets talk airmanship. Emirates OM-A does not say something like this: A second approach should only be done if conditions have improved considerably. A third approach should only be done if landing is highly probable?

Your company has stated that this diversion was due to a storm that was not there.
Flydubai has the same owners as Emirates. Can we expect the same level of thruth from Flydubai when it comes to information relating to the Rostov accident?

[donpizmeov]

What information did the crew gain from their maintenance department while holding before the last approach? If you don't know, which from your comments it would seem you don't, how can you question their airmanship?

Spotters opinion really can be distracting on this forum. How you can have such forthright opinion on an event you have no understanding about, while not understanding how your aircraft behaves when conducting a missed approach. This would reflect more poorly upon yourself than this crew.

This crew had nothing to do with what the company says. They just did their job.

[beardy]

I really don't know why you are bothering with some of the opinions of the less well versed individuals who post here. Whatever you say they will not change their point of view. But that doesn't matter since they don't seem to be in a position to hazard any passengers and don't seem to be willing to learn.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Spotters opinion really can be distracting on this forum. How you can have such forthright opinion on an event you have no understanding about, while not understanding how your aircraft behaves when conducting a missed approach. This would reflect more poorly upon yourself than this crew.

Make up your mind, please. Spotter or pilot?
Nowhere have I said I don't know how my aircraft behaves in a missed approach. That was not what the discussion was about.
No need to degrade other pilots just because you are used to getting that treament from you own management.
Stick to the topic. Three approaches are unusual, no?
Not landing on a runway that is more than long enough for the aircraft type is not normal practice. If it is not long enough, then the airport is not suitable for the type. Wet and windy is not unusual for MAN.

[glofish]

The crew did what they were told (paid) to do to get paid their salary and that's exactly what good pilots would do, simple, straight forward, end of..

Yeah, right!

They should do anything the company tells them to do, because they're paid by them.
They should heed any advice by maintenance, because they have the bigger picture from their office.
They should fly any fatiguing roster up to 100h a month without complaining, because the FRMS team says that their calculator shows only minor fatiguing sectors.
They should go into any discretion, up to any limit, because the company says its legal.

Simple, straight forward, end of story and we all can give back the fourth stripe.

If you really mean the above, you're dangerous aviators. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[AtomKraft]

Here it is in a nutshell.

We all know the crew did something stupid, because they poked off from a perfectly good airfield where they KNEW they could land.

But they did not do this stupid thing for a stupid reason.

They did this stupid thing, because their stupid company made them.

If it wasn't for the stupid company, they would have done the sensible thing, and landed.

But if they'd done the sensible thing, and landed, then the stupid company would have kicked their asses.

Sound about right?

[ManaAdaSystem]

Spot on, AtomKraft.
Those who have never worked in the ME does not understand this.

[JammedStab]

If the company is going to demote me or fire me, or put something on my record for continuing to land in a situation like this, assuming it is safe to do, I will go around no matter what the morons on this thread say about airmanship. Continuing to land and using the excuse that some idiot with a stupid name like Glofish on a forum thought it would be a good idea isn't going to work with management in a punishment culture airline.

That being said, I wonder what the policy is for the company when the only safe alternate is a runway significantly shorter than the one the software says I can't land on. I'll still go to it to preserve my pay as long as it is safe but this is a quite possible scenario.

[glofish]

Another JammedBrain with reading comprehension problems ...

I never said they should have continued. Going around is required, as helen so eloquently stated and i agree. Then you hold and assess and realise that there must be a glitch in HAL, switch him off, use the alternate procedure and go and land successfully. Two other attempts with a stubborn HAL resemble more to a desperate wish the glitch would go away, than an attempt with a reasonable chance of not getting his warning again.

By the way, in the same week another whale had a similar warning and its jockey did exactly what i described. Successful landing, no consequences.
And funnily enough the company issued a notam to only attempt 2 approaches at the same airport.
(Might have to do with the FZ accident, but applies to HAL as well now)

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Don't blame the people -blame the process.

[helen-damnation]

In house report is published but will not be posted here.

Suffice to say the crew were in contact with the company and acted in accordance with company advice and procedures.

It's up to the company to change the procedure, not the crew.

End of!

[glofish]

Jawohl.

Schluss von!