Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?

[Technight101]

In respect to fire service, could someone explain the significance of the different liveried fire trucks?
A video appears to show passengers 400 meters from the plane and passing beside a plane parked near hangers, but yet they are passed by a convoy of yellow liveried fire appliances racing toward the plane.
This would be over 6 minutes after the 777 came to a full stop.
Also in this video there is a red fire truck stopped on the apron facing away from from the plane and near the walking passengers, perhaps returning for more water?

How far away is the most distant fire station from the incident?
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/760841108410605568

The onboard video taken by a passenger shows a brief glimpse of two red liveried fire trucks positioned beside the plane.

Presumably one station has red trucks and another has yellow?

Sad to hear that a firefighter lost his life in the callout.
Mickjoebill
The fire trucks in the city's stations are all yellow. The aerodrome firetrucks are all red. I'm guessing that due to the gravity of the situation the city's yellow firetrucks for called for additional support.

[3wheels]

If there were only four injured in the evacuation, I'd have to say I'm amazed.
Yes, probably because it was low on its belly!

[tdracer]

Still to be seen is whether the over-wing departing engine ruptured a fuel tank before the later explosion.
Design intent is that in an overload situation, the strut will fail in such a way that the engine goes over the wing instead of under, without rupturing the fuel tank. However that's all done by analysis - how it works in the real world will be interesting to find out.


Regarding windshear - many airports in the US have ground based windshear detection systems (Doppler radar based, IIRC) so ATC can warn approaching aircraft or even temporarily close down a runway. Why wouldn't a major airport like Dubai have a similar system?:confused:


As for passengers evacuating with carry-on luggage, how about creating a separate thread so you can re-hash all the arguments that get repeated after every ground evacuation without cluttering up the thread for those of us that want to discuss what actually happened? Maybe the mods can make it a sticky :rolleyes:

[yellowcontrails]

local Captain will be hailed a hero in due course.

Aussie FO will be hung.

EK SOP

[underfire]

"Passenger say minutes before the flight crashed, one of the pilots made an announcement that there was a problem with the landing gear and that the plane would be making an emergency landing."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/firefighter-killed-as-emirates-plane-crash-lands-at-dubai-airport/news-story/afde32cf1546043072354fc9c9b62484

Since Boeing monitors 787 and 777 real time, it is assured that the details will be available.

Also this:
The crashed Emirates 777 wirelessly transmitted critical flight data within minutes of the accident to airline officials, the supplier of the data storage and transmission device says.

Raul Segredo, president and chief executive of Avionica, says the device spared safety investigators a search through the wreckage for the flight data recorder to recover immediate data about the last seconds of the landing sequence.

Miami-based Avionica supplies the miniQAR Mk III quick access recorder for the Emirates 777 fleet. The device receives flight information from the same databus that feeds the flight data recorder, Segredo says. The device is linked to a 3G wireless transmitter.

A key feature of Avionica’s design may have made the speedy data transmission possible despite the crash landing. Similar devices are programmed to begin transmitting data after the landing gear have touched the runway, Segredo says. The miniQAR MK III uses a proprietary algorithm that uses a mixture of parameters to determine when to activate the data transmission on the ground, he says. Emirates officials have confirmed to Avionica that the device worked on the crashed 777."

[lospilotos]

Keep hearing these reports that ATC "reminded the crew to lower the gear", but I'm yet to hear that on the LiveATC recordings. The transmissions from ATC are very poor, but surely one would think there would be some kind of reply from the crew if ATC indeed reminded them of lowering the gear...

Where is this info coming from?

[Longtimer]

If true, would it not be indeed strange for ATC to remind pilots to
"lower their landing gear"? Or is this now normal procedure?

[Mimpe]

on very low level go arounds ( ground effect?)with adverse ambient and performance conditions ( low speed, low thrust, tailwind, low pressure, high temp) would the SOP of flaps 30 to flaps 20 remove both drag AND lift at a crucial juncture?

[oldoberon]

Julio747 wrote

UAE is fairly small as it happens. Take a look at many major airports around the world and you won't see much difference....

Yes but invariably they don't have the luxury of 1000s of acres of sand to use,or relatively flat land

ESP wrote
I seem to remember back in the late 70's, early 80's it was mainly sand around the airport, its just the manic expansion of Dubai which has made it as it is today

My point entirely look at how much of Dubai is sand, could easily have had a building embargo of mile if the had wanted to.

http://i63.tinypic.com/ffcpb5.jpg

[lospilotos]

"Passenger say minutes before the flight crashed, one of the pilots made an announcement that there was a problem with the landing gear and that the plane would be making an emergency landing."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/firefighter-killed-as-emirates-plane-crash-lands-at-dubai-airport/news-story/afde32cf1546043072354fc9c9b62484

Since Boeing monitors 787 and 777 real time, it is assured that the details will be available.



I would not be at all surprised if this turns out to be the normal "Cabin crew, prepare for landing" PA.

[camel]

It is a clear instruction FROM ATC 'Emirates 521 go around climb 4000' ....or did i miss hear it ? did the tower see something wrong with the gear ?

[Airbubba]

"Passenger say minutes before the flight crashed, one of the pilots made an announcement that there was a problem with the landing gear and that the plane would be making an emergency landing."

These media reports seem to originate with a Keralite journalist based in Dubai:

Passengers evacuated from an Emirates flight say that minutes before the flight crash-landed at Dubai airport, the pilot made an announcement that he needed to make an emergency landing.

Iype Vallikadan, a reporter from Indian newspaper "Mathrubhumi News," says the passengers said the pilot spoke to them as the plane neared Dubai on Wednesday, saying there was a problem with the landing gear and that he would make an emergency landing.


The Latest: Dubai's ruler names, mourns killed firefighter - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32605740/the-latest-dubais-ruler-names-mourns-killed-firefighter)

Of course, with the news cycle, the item morphed into:

A passenger, Iype Vallikadan, said the pilot had announced there was a problem with the landing gear as the plane neared Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and he would make an emergency landing, the Associated Press reported.

Emirates plane crash-lands with 300 aboard; 1 firefighter killed (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/08/03/emirates-says-incident-has-happened-dubai-airport/87991100/)

Also, a UK media source says the plane 'caught fire in mid-air' and the captain 'sent out and [sic] emergency signal':

British passengers were caught up in mid-air terror after a Emirates airline plane caught fire in mid-air and dramatically crash-landed at Dubai International Airport.

Twenty-four Brits were among the 300 passengers on board the Boeing 777-300 jet when it smashed down onto the runway at around 1pm local time (10am UK time).

Miraculously, no-one was seriously hurt in the crash and passengers were evacuated just minutes before the plane exploded into flames.

The three-hour flight took off from Trivandrum International Airport in India at around 6am UK time before the captain is understood to have sent out and emergency signal shortly before the plane was due to land.

Eye-witnesses described seeing huge plumes of smoke rising from the plane before it crashed down onto the runway.


Emirates airline plane 'crash lands at Dubai International Airport after mid-air fire drama' with 24 Brits on board - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/emirates-airline-plane-crash-lands-8550266)

And, this early report here:

Have heard from a friend who's at DXB this Morning that Smoke could be seen while it was on approach.

Good job involved for getting it down and everybody off safely.

Was the PA the one made after the aircraft came to a stop and the reporter got it wrong? And were the flames perhaps after an initial hard landing and bounce?

I'm wondering if the initial touchdown did so much damage that the plane, perhaps fortuitously in this case, was unable to do a two engine go around? The Air Canada 621 crash in 1970 in YYZ comes to mind.

[vapilot2004]

The wheel rims contain fusible plugs to prevent brake fires causing a tyre explosion but maybe these didn't work as advertised this time.

Hot brakes heat the plugs and wheel assemblies from the inside out. External fires propagate heat from the outside in, which could (obviously) lead to tire failure before plugs have reached their designed melting temp.


I recall seeing as my flight taxied in at Boston around 40 years ago, a TWA L1011 in much the same state as today's B777, except that it was on its own wheels. Does anyone know about the causes of that incident and if there are any similarities to, or contrasts with, the EK happening?

I am unaware of any TWA losses at Logan. There was a TriStar that was consumed by fire at JFK a couple of decades ago.

[CONSO]

" Design intent is that in an overload situation, the strut will fail in such a way that the engine goes over the wing instead of under, without rupturing the fuel tank. However that's all done by analysis - how it works in the real world will be interesting to find out."

Thank you tdracer. And as I recall- there is about a 1 foot on either side of the strut assembly which is a DRY BAY ( without fuel ) for the same reason. And as you say and I mentioned in post 181 - the' normal' design assumes the plane is in flight re the linkage and fuse pins. But hitting the ground at an angle to travel can screw up the best of 'what if' design criteria.

[lomapaseo]

Design intent is that in an overload situation, the strut will fail in such a way that the engine goes over the wing instead of under, without rupturing the fuel tank. However that's all done by analysis - how it works in the real world will be interesting to find out.




That works well in flight where air lift loads on the inlet are significant, but I would think that ground friction loads against the nacelle would stop the engine so the wing would try to overrun it. At any rate no complaints about the design when the aircraft intersects something other than air

just trying to understand the dings and bangs of this incident :)

[BuzzBox]

tdracer:
Regarding windshear - many airports in the US have ground based windshear detection systems (Doppler radar based, IIRC) so ATC can warn approaching aircraft or even temporarily close down a runway. Why wouldn't a major airport like Dubai have a similar system?

Most of the ground-based windshear detection systems used around the world employ doppler radar that relies on the reflectivity of water droplets in the air. They're not much good in dry conditions. Hong Kong has a LIDAR system to complement its Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR). The LIDAR uses an infrared laser to detect the movement of dust particles or aerosols in dry conditions. I don't know what type of equipment they have in Dubai.

[mickjoebill]

Heard on the news from a pax that only 1 door was available for exit. Is this true? Why would every door but 1 be blocked?
So the passenger checked all doors?
Two slides were not used on left hand side, both apparently due to the effect of wind blowing them upwards.

Mickjoebill

[underfire]

oldeberon,

Dubai airport is very constrained due to airspace. The regional ATC is bounded by Iran and Oman, and flights inbound from that direction only have a 6 minute timeframe to show up on the screens, so all of that traffic has a very short notification time to be integrated by ATC. The airspace issues with DWC, which shares a hold pattern further complicates the issues.

Depending, if something is in the way, they will remove it

In addition, there are very narrow corridors due to military airspace, tall structures, other Countries, and other restricted zones.

[tdracer]

That works well in flight where air lift loads on the inlet are significant, but I would think that ground friction loads against the nacelle would stop the engine so the wing would try to overrun it. At any rate no complaints about the design when the aircraft intersects something other than air


Lomapaseo (http://www.pprune.org/members/48942-lomapaseo), this is somewhat out of my area of expertise (I've never worked structures), but my understanding is one of the design scenarios is an overload due to a wheels up landing - you want the engine to go up and over rather than under for obvious reasons. However CONSO is right - without knowing the exact angle and speed of impact it would be near impossible to get it to work 100%. Oh, and CONSO is also correct about the 'dry bay' in the area of the wing where the strut attaches (also helpful for uncontained engine failures).
BuzzBox, thanks for the clarification - I was unfamiliar with the limitations of the Doppler based windshear system in the desert.

[Roger Greendeck]

CONFIG GEAR also comes on if flaps are in the landing position (F25 or F30) with the gear up. The EGPWS will also give you are warning close to the ground and not configured.

[xyze]

For all you advocating sitting tight in the case of an uncontained fire with SQ, looking at the burnt out fuselage, any change of mind?

Well done to the EK crew and RFF.

Even with what little is known at present, the circumstances of this event would appear to be quite different to those of the SQ incident, most obviously starting with an uncontrolled 'crash' landing and detachment of the starboard engine.

[ManaAdaSystem]

If they tried to go around because of a windshear warning, they should have left the gear down.
If they tried to go around because of a windshear not strong enough to trigger a warning, most likely a normal goaround would be the way.
This was a flight from Thiruvanantapuram. Good chance more than 200 of the passengers spoke little or no English. Getting them off the aircraft in a few minutes is fantastic! Never mind the hand luggage. It would have been near impossible to get that message through.
One thing puzzles me. The METAR winds I have seen are in no way strong enough to push a slide out of position.

It will be intersting to see what Emitrates will do with the pilots.
The Aussie first officer is lucky to have a local captain in this accident. Difficult to fire just one of them.
Unless this accident was due to the captains/crews actions.

[PoppaJo]

No doubt they will both be ordered to resign.

No different to the Melbourne incident. Crew flown back to Emirates HQ following day....Handed pre prepared 'resignation letters'.....Goodnight Irene.

They don't muck about.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Local captain. Not so clear cut as you suggest, PoppaJo.

[TwinJock]

Cannot belief the "wheels-up approach" angle - so the crew ignored the GPWS warning regarding gear position till near touchdown? Configuration warning with flap 30 selected - No ways ....

[AtomKraft]

Not a 777 pilot, but on the type I fly the call is 'go around, set flaps'.

Wouldn't be the first time that a pilot raised the gear when he'd been asked to raise the flaps, would it?

[ozaub]

When reading this, is anyone else getting a booking.com advert for "926 properties in Dubai. Search now".
FYI FAR 25.561b (Crashworthiness) requires
"For equipment, cargo in the passenger compartments and any other large masses, the following apply:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph(c)(2) of this section, these items must be positioned so that if they break loose, they will be unlikely to:

(i) Cause direct injury to occupants;
(ii) Penetrate fuel tanks or lines or cause fire or explosion hazard by damage to adjacent systems; or

(iii) Nullify any of the escape facilities provided for use after an emergency landing."
Applies to wing mounted engines and is usually met by fuse links in conjunction with a range of break-away scenarios.

[BB97]

Cannot belief the "wheels-up approach" angle - so the crew ignored the GPWS warning regarding gear position till near touchdown? Configuration warning with flap 30 selected - No ways ....

Agreed, plus the Electronic Checklist would not have been complete resulting in an EICAS warning.

There has been an incident in a B777 where the F/O who was the handling pilot, disconnected the Autothrottle instead of pressing the TOGA switch when commencing the Go Around. The Autothrottle button is located on the side of each thrust lever on the B777, the TOGA switches are located forward of each thrust lever. Not only did the thrust not automatically advance to GA, but the F/D's continued in the Approach mode instead of pitching up. Not saying this is what happened here but it is a more likely scenario for causing the aircraft to strike the runway while the gear was retracting. Inconceivable in a B777 that the crew can land with the gear retracted and not know about it.

[BuzzBox]

Not a 777 pilot, but on the type I fly the call is 'go around, set flaps'.

The call is similar on the 777 - "Go around, flaps 20".

Wouldn't be the first time that a pilot raised the gear when he'd been asked to raise the flaps, would it?

No, and it also wouldn't be the first time a go around has been initiated without pressing the TOGA switches, especially by ex-Airbus pilots, although I'm not saying that's the case here. I've seen it happen several times in the simulator: pilot pushes up thrust levers to commence a go around (without pressing TOGA), calls for Flaps 20, positive climb, gear up, meanwhile pilot takes hands off thrust levers and the thrust comes back to idle. Oops...

[Airbubba]

local Captain will be hailed a hero in due course.

Aussie FO will be hung.

EK SOP

It will be intersting to see what Emitrates will do with the pilots.
The Aussie first officer is lucky to have a local captain in this accident. Difficult to fire just one of them.
Unless this accident was due to the captains/crews actions.

No doubt they will both be ordered to resign.

No different to the Melbourne incident. Crew flown back to Emirates HQ following day....Handed pre prepared 'resignation letters'.....Goodnight Irene.

They don't muck about.

Were the crew in the EK Melbourne accident both expats?

Didn't they take some procedural shortcut in entering weight and balance data and not do the required crosscheck?

U.S. airlines often fire pilots after an accident if they find out they weren't doing their jobs, e.g. checklists and procedures. But, the union sometimes quietly gets their jobs back as with (I think) at least one of the pilots from the Southwest Burbank crash years ago.

I realize the EK pilots don't pay union dues.

[removebeforeflight03]

listening to the live atc feed of the accident , I'm getting a little confused if the go around was initiated by the ATC ( recording not very clear ) but the pilot response of climb 4000Ft is very clear . which is pretty much the last conversation , and then after about 10sec you hear a voice saying " did you see that " so that would have been the time of the impact .

[JammedStab]

The call is similar on the 777 - "Go around, flaps 20".

And it also wouldn't be the first time a go around has been initiated without pressing the TOGA switches, especially by ex-Airbus pilots, although I'm not saying that's the case here. I've seen it happen several times in the simulator: pilot pushes up thrust levers to commence a go around (without pressing TOGA), calls for Flaps 20, positive climb, gear up, meanwhile pilot takes hands off thrust levers and the thrust comes back to idle. Oops...

That is why I started to always say "Go-around, TOGA, Flaps 20". Not exactly SOP but the sim instructor can debrief it later as the only minor issue on the properly flown go-around procedure.

[L-38]

Would be interesting to know what EK's B777 legal temperature operating limitations are as 120f is the normal limitation for most Boeing aircraft. DXB METAR temp as reported was 49c or 120.2f. . . Such limits however, can vary by airline in that they may be extended by Boeing if the airline is willing to pay extra $$ for special engineering (extrapolation) data.

In the USA, many Boeing operators cannot legally operate at temps of 120f or higher. EK I would expect, is in possession of higher limits.

[Pin Head]

or even better on the NG,

Goaround, flaps 15, check thrust

This is what I am doing
This is what I need
This is what I want you to check

[mickjoebill]

So one side of the aircraft is smoking with the engine visible on top of the wing and on the left side no flames or smoke but three perfectly good doors can't be used because the slides were flapping in the wind or blown up against the open door.

With a fire truck and firemen on the ground powerless to speed up the evacuation.

Can't we do better?

Mickjoebill

[fox niner]

Re: 49 degrees oat. Does it still happen that the actual temerature is above 50 degrees, but the official temperature is kept at 49? There seems to be a local law, stating that on days with 50+ degrees, all manual labor is halted. So they warp reality and officially keep it at 49.
Of course engines at go-around thrust don't listen to this artificial temp. They perform according to actual ambient conditions.

[sitigeltfel]

So one side of the aircraft is smoking with the engine visible on top of the wing and on the left side no flames or smoke

There was/had been a fire on the Left side

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/03/19/36D82BE500000578-3721366-image-a-41_1470248867654.jpg

[Xeque]

@sitigeltfel #305 above
Does that flap still look to be set at 30?

[ACMS]

XEQUE--- yes I also look at the Flap position and question it.....doesn't look to be 30, hard to tell?

[BuzzBox]

Xeque:
@sitigeltfel #305 above
Does that flap still look to be set at 30?

It looks more like Flap 20, which is the go around flap setting. It certainly doesn't look like Flap 30.

The following video shows a 777-300ER with Flap 20 at 8:01:
https://youtu.be/Xtwne9UbH8o?t=481

Flap 30 at 8:45:
https://youtu.be/Xtwne9UbH8o?t=525

Of course the Emirates aircraft could have been using Flap 25 for landing, given the conditions.

[blimey]

xyze

Even with what little is known at present, the circumstances of this event would appear to be quite different to those of the SQ incident, most obviously starting with an uncontrolled 'crash' landing and detachment of the starboard engine.

The point is how quickly a fuselage made of aluminium and surrounded by flammable liquid and an uncontained fire can be reduced to a charred shell, even with Dubai RFF going above and beyond the call of duty. Any doubt, get out.

[susier]

MickJoeBill,

further to your comments about evacuation slides being blown around and rendered useless thereby, a similar issue came to my attention with the Korean Air incident at Haneda back on May 27th.

(see http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/579559-korean-air-2708-hnd.html)

If (as I believe is recommended in an engine fire scenario) the aircraft is positioned with the wind blowing the fire and smoke away from the fuselage, rather than towards it, this might create a problem with the slides on the 'safe' side.

I don't know if there is an answer to this problem.

[Good Business Sense]

As most on here will know - On a go around, particularly one initiated at a low level, if you don't pitch up at the same time as you apply the thrust then you just accelerate towards the ground at a frightening rate - I've seen it in the sim many times.

I have also seen, sitting at the holding point with a sub 200 foot cloud base, a 747 exit the overcast apparently still on the glideslope with the wheels in transit and very nearly impact the ground as it climbs back into the overcast.

LOW GA + THRUST BEFORE PITCH + TAILWIND COMPONENT/HIGH ROD + AMBIENT CONDITIONS ?

Just a thought

[vapilot2004]

A TWA TriStar was burned out on the ramp at Boston on 19th April 1974, presumably the incident the OP was referring to.


Nice bit of sleuthing Master Reid. Using your date, I was able to discover the probable cause was a kettle warmer left on while she sat parked and empty.

[ACMS]

A CATHAY L1011 EVAC in Tokyo Haneda a long time ago suffered the same problem of the slides blowing in the wind rendering them useless.....

[Airbuspilot72]

Heard that all the crew of EK521 is put up in a hotel so that they cannot talk to media or any one else.

Is this true....???????

[5milesbaby]

UK news have several interviews from passengers who all speak very good English and all confirm that there was no cabin call pre-warning them before crashing.

[Desertweasel]

Heard that all the crew of EK521 is put up in a hotel so that they cannot talk to media or any one else.

Is this true....???????
This is SOP

[Less Hair]

Do we need slides that are better windproofed? In most cases any winds will blow from the nose to the tail so just some minor stabilization (like a rope or some inflatable "anchor" or similar) might make more evacuations slides available?

[pilotguy1222]

F20 Gear down landing rate of climb for 225T at 49 degrees gives you approx 390fpm climb at sea level.

Things get interesting if you forget to go from F30 to F20 in the Go-Around.

F30 Gear down landing rate of climb at 225T at 49 degrees gives you approx minus 190fpm at sea level!

Note, all these figures are for SINGLE ENGINE.

Performance with both engines even at 49 degrees is not an issue.


No airport will tell you you can't land with an emergency. They may 'suggest' other options but, as Captain, it's your choice.

Edited to add that these are for the 777-300 GE115. My operator doesn't have the straight 300 so willing to be corrected

This was a RR powered 777.


The radio call from tower for the GA, and the reply from the PM, does not mean that the GA was instructed by the tower. The ATC controller was most likely paying attention and rather than wait for the call from EK521, he was proactive and eliminated a 3rd transmission on tower's freq.
The call to tell tower about a GA is pretty low on my priority list, especially in close proximity to the runway.

While quiet, you can hear the CA command the evac in the evac video. Sounded SOP to me.

[andyp911]

Just been reported on Australian TV news that the Australian copilot of the aircraft is a Qantas employee and is currently on leave without pay. That makes no sense as Qantas has no 777's. Has to be a misreport.

[ACMS]

Nope perfectly possible, quite a few surplus QF crew went on LWOP and joined many different Airlines. Some had never flown the type they were employed on and were therefore trained. Most will come back to QF, some won't.

Simple.


Oh and it is a standard call for Military Towers in Australia to say "clear to land check wheels" the reply is "three greens" ( or whatever the type has!! )

[Airbuspilot72]

Rumor around at Costa is that it was wake of the preceding AC combined with winds

[Landflap]

ACMS : Yes. And if the resultant prang & slide was not anticipated by the crew, everyone did a mighty fine job of handling, instantly, the evacuation. Total praise for that last bit and all, but one, survived. Now, lining up the holes and the blame game will be noteworthy.

[Heathrow Harry]

Slides - IIRC there was a good discussion about the issues way back when they introduced the 747 and Tripp of PanAm was worried about how people would get off

If you make them very stiff they are heavy (bad for economics) and can be dangerous to both the passengers, the fire crews and the airframe. - there is also a problem in fitting and deploying a "hard" slide.

And if you want them to double as temporary life rafts...................

[neville_nobody]

Just been reported on Australian TV news that the Australian copilot of the aircraft is a Qantas employee and is currently on leave without pay. That makes no sense as Qantas has no 777's. Has to be a misreport.

No that's possible as QANTAS pilots are flying for EK on secondment. Always a better option than being made redundant.

[phil gollin]

.

Interesting how little information has been released just over 24 hours after the incident.

Who are the investigating authorities ?

[Georgemorris]

Re the earlier pics of the flaps. Is it not normal to lower 40 (or more) flap during the evac drill?

[SOPS]

Not on the 777. There are over wing slides.

[ekwhistleblower]

.

Interesting how little information has been released just over 24 hours after the incident.

Who are the investigating authorities ?

Not really, the GCAA who would be responsible will follow protocol , gather information and issue an interim report when they have it. It will just state facts. Within 28 days I think and would include any essential safety recommendations.

[sceh]

Who is investigating?
Is this in Dubai where the temperature never exceeds 50c, the building workers are shipped out each night to camps, a foreigner is automatically guilty in a road accident, you have to pay a bribe to get a drivers licence etc etc?

Let's not hope its the locals but I am afraid it will be...

[Georgemorris]

So, assuming the aircraft was experiencing a significant tailwind, had got high/fast, had the thrust back at idle and decided to do a 'normal' but rather late go-around: how long would it take for the engines to spool up enough to climb once the appropriate buttons/levers had been pressed/pushed?

[xyze]

xyze



The point is how quickly a fuselage made of aluminium and surrounded by flammable liquid and an uncontained fire can be reduced to a charred shell, even with Dubai RFF going above and beyond the call of duty. Any doubt, get out.

I don't think anyone at present knows exactly how long it took for the fire in this incident to be extinguished. Clearly not in time to save the cabin, which judging from the haze/smoke visible in the videos available of the interior immediately after the accident may have been breached during the crash landing itself. Contrast this with the SQ event in which the cabin had not been compromised and fire crews were dousing flames within a minute from the time the aircraft stopped, based on video of the event. That same video shows that the starboard wing fire appeared to be being effectively suppressed by the fire services within 90 seconds of 'first foam'.

Might it have gone otherwise, and the fire been less easily contained? Yes, in which case presumably the AFS would have communicated this fact to the commander - no doubt continuously re-evaluating his decision not to evacuate - who could've acted accordingly.

[wheels_down]

Aussie FO on secondment from QF confirmed.

Australian co-pilot Jeremy Webb escaped Emirates plane crash in Dubai (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/australian-copilot-jeremy-webb-ran-for-life-after-emirates-plane-crash-landing-and-caught-fire-in-dubai/news-story/a0a918eafb6c26456c7bcb9649f0fd2d)

[fo4ever]

The AIB at the state of occurrence will be in charge of the investigation, in this case the GCAA.

Now the AIB is supposed to be impartial but in the UAE it is organized under the governing body of the GCAA - This is in my opinion a problem!

In most countries the AIB is completely separated from CAA to make sure that an investigation will be conducted without pressure from the governing authority.

Who owns Emirates, who owns the GCAA and who controls the AIB?

Lets see how they can spin it!

That said Boeing, RR and probably the ATSB will be accredited to the investigation.

[Sober Lark]

So how will Emirates 'buy' themselves back into ignoring a hull loss as an accident when the safety records are compiled?


In passing I note Gulf news yesterday stated "Emirates suffers first hull loss in three decade history'. And today one of their headlines read "Emirates safety record - Zero deaths in 30 years".

[Established]

Forwarded to me from a mate who had it forwarded to him :

" My mate is with flydubai and he saw the crash live :
Yeah I was crossing runway behind it as it landed ....front row seat ... they landed hard, aborted , go around, gear up ... not enough power and it sank back into the runway .... some are saying windshear but we felt nothing. Crazy site to see ...even crazier that apparently most people survived ! I thought it was a total loss for sure.
This was on the fo group chat "



The above message was posted as it was received. I can't verify its authenticity and make of it what you will.

[camel]

Finger trouble with the TOGA switches?:confused:

[RoyHudd]

Sounds plausible. I do wonder if the B777 "landed with equal weight on wheels on each side, whether the spoilers auto-deployed, and whether idle reverse was selected on "touchdown"? And of course whether TOGA was selected promptly? Many unanswered questions.

As for the cabin crew, clearly they performed their job well as a team.

[Ian W]

For all you advocating sitting tight in the case of an uncontained fire with SQ, looking at the burnt out fuselage, any change of mind?

Well done to the EK crew and RFF.
If you cannot tell the difference between the two incidents then I hope you are not flight deck crew.

[notapilot15]

@Sober Lark, Ratings and Data Analytics in aviation are very innovative in selective presentation. They will find a way to include or exclude data points. Most notorious example is AI182. Entire world knows that accident has nothing to do with airliner, but rating agencies kept the hull loss and fatalities to keep its safety rating down for 30 years.

[fab777]

TOGA swithces are inactive after touchdown. you need to push the levers forward if you want to GA after a bounce. if you forget that and just push the switches and rotate the aircraft with both hands on the wheel, the outcome will be exactly what happened yesterday.

[camel]

Was thinking more a case of trying to G/A before landing and just pushing the levers forward..instead of the TOGA switches.Followed by the thrust levers retracting and then the impact with the runway followed by the bounce..then crash.

[swish266]

Cazalet33

Yours is of the most valuable sentences for people who understand, on this thread.
Reminds me a bit of the AF flight at CDG some time ago that barely escaped... They did a G/A w/o moving the thrust levers to the TOGA position. Went down on the ILS to 63'. But escaped. NO SUCH LUCK this time.

[LLuCCiFeR]

Heard that all the crew of EK521 is put up in a hotel so that they cannot talk to media or any one else.

Is this true....???????This is SOPErrrr, placing a crew under 'house arrest' in a hotel is SOP? http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

[olli4740]

OK, but why did they retract the landing gear without confirming GA mode being active, without a positive ROC and so close to the ground in a known windshear area?

[JammedStab]

Seeing as we are discussing the TOGA switch inhibition now, could someone point out where in the FCOM/FCTM this info is located. A while back I had trouble finding this info and I was sure that there was something about it being inhibited perhaps below 2 feet until perhaps 3 seconds above 5 feet after getting airborne or something like that. I was told that this info had been removed from the FCOM.

[VR-HFX]

fab777...indeed and with an ambient temp of approx 120F no margin for error at all...QED.Great job to get everyone off.

[A Squared]

If true, would it not be indeed strange for ATC to remind pilots to
"lower their landing gear"? Or is this now normal procedure?

It's a Standard Call at US Military air bases, and apparently other military air bases. Seems like I've heard this from civilian tower controllers also, but can't put my finger on exactly where or when.

[safetypee]

Re "...safety record - Zero deaths in 30 years", the industry should note the comment "That we should be thinking beyond numbers, the border between a hull loss and a fatal accident may be relatively thin sometimes." page 4 in
A Statistical Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents 1958-2015 (http://www.airbus.com/company/aircraft-manufacture/quality-and-safety-first/?eID=maglisting_push&tx_maglisting_pi1%5BdocID%5D=108528)

Our safety thoughts should focus more on those positive aspects which have avoided fatalities; e.g. Cabin Crew, AFRS, ATC comms, airport layout.

[Wirbelsturm]

Seeing as we are discussing the TOGA switch inhibition now, could someone point out where in the FCOM/FCTM this info is located

There is a general section pertinent to it in the FCTM 'Go-Around and Missed Approach - All Engines Operating'

If the sequence of events was truly as described by the FlyDubai witness then it would seem a mistake was made bringing the gear up too early after the aborted touchdown. The drag incurred by the cycling of the main gear doors is very large and in high temperatures and low density air that is going to have a very detrimental effect on your climb ability.

I've often had RR engines red line temporarily in hot and high conditions on take off. :( Obviously pure speculation (it is a rumour network!) but if the ground/air switches had toggled then TOGA would have been unavailable until after take off thus manual thrust required, were the flaps selected to 20 or the gear selected up first?

It will make interesting reading and of great interest to those of us who operate this type to hot and high destinations.

[OLDI]

The second runway (12L/30R) will likely be opening within the next hour or two.

[skkm]

Seeing as we are discussing the TOGA switch inhibition now, could someone point out where in the FCOM/FCTM this info is located.

FCOM 1 - Auto Flight System Description - Automatic Flight Go-Around

[Wirbelsturm]

FCOM 1 - Auto Flight System Description - Automatic Flight Go-Around

Thanks, couldn't find it for looking!

[Broomstick Flier]

In Brazilian airspace, all local operators (airlines, GA, etc) are required to state landing gear status when contacting the tower on approach, unless told not to by NOTAM on a specific airport.

Great job by the CC on the EK accident, glad all came out of it alive :D

[FlyingStone]

Interesting how little information has been released just over 24 hours after the incident.

Who are the investigating authorities ?

Well, I'll let you know the chairman of both entities (authority and airline) is the same. Safety management - Middle East style.

[CAPTDOUG]

A couple years ago I was flying 777 and landing in EWR. Crew of 4 pilots. During landing with wx clear.. winds light and variable,, no traffic in the air or on the ground, no external factors and GE engines normally spooled for approach. We hit a massive smash of something from the right and was forced off centerline. I slammed the throttles forward attempting a G/A but the aircraft didn't respond. Control was marginal and I didn't call for gear up as we continued marginally uncontrolled descent.. Managed to get back close to centerline with full power and smashed the landing. Rammed into reverse and smashed the brakes as the spoilers came up.. Me 6000 hours of 777 PIC time. and 30,000 total time. FO 500 777, IRO C5 driver and other IRO I don't remember.. Stopped on the runway turnoff and all expressed total surprise and wonderment. None of had ever seen anything like that before.. I asked the company for FOQUA data to see what happened and they refused.
Don't be so quick to blame the crew. Mystery sheet happens in aviation.

[glofish]

The TO/GA switches are inhibited when on the ground and enabled again when in the air for a go–around or touch and go.

Interesting interpretations: Where do you set a bounced landing in reference of inhibiting TOGA? And is bouncing airborne again considered "in the air", or "touch and go"?
It is not crystal clear and i remember me pushing the switches multiple times and shoving up the levers in the sim with a similar scenario to finally get TOGA .....

(Ahhhh, wishing back the spring-loaded firewall switch of the MD11: Shove the levers through the spring resistance and the AP and AT go off, max available thrust kicks in, FD commands wings level and max nose up and no automatic reversal whatsoever happens until the pilot switches stuff back on to his liking.

That could save your day.)

[PEI_3721]

Humans have the ability to find patterns in every aspect of life, including speculative views of events based on very limited data.
Does the 777 FD logic represent a poorly engineered technology, something which enables opportunity for 'error', being a mismatch between the procedure for bounced landing vs an airborne GA. (Note a conceptual similarity with SFO 777 auto thrust; it's so much easier to blame the human, demand more training, vigilance, monitoring; opposed to re-engineering the aircraft to help the often resource limited pilot). How many 777 FD 'near misses' have their been, written off as human error, not understanding the system, or because other pilots manage to cope (they know/ remember), then everyone is expected to cope in all situations, all of the time.

As an extremely speculative thought, with the hazard of biased false pattern matching.
What if this is similar to BA 38.
Un-commanded thrust reduction late on final ... Heavy landing ... GA procedure, but no thrust response ... Then a subsequent heavier landing .. Fuel tank rupture, and Fire.

But then that's just a pattern, a figment of imagination ... ... Or is it worth a thought for safety if only to dismiss it?

[aterpster]

Captain Doug:

Mystery sheet happens in aviation.

Makes me think of the 777 at Heathrow.

Your incident likely demonstrates how automation engineers don't always do such a sterling job. And, your company's attitude was appalling. Makes them part of the problem rather than the solution.

[efatnas]

Gear down three green Landing checklist completed..... or go around flaps 20 positive rate gear up..... congrats to the cabin crew!!!!!!! 90 seconds.... Wow!!!!!

[Twiglet1]

If I remember correctly the GCAA were widely praised on the UPS 747 crash at Dubai.
I doubt very much any of the big chiefs will try to influence the report. Interesting the F word hasn't been thrown in much either. If both crew have been working their nuts off then this is the stuff the investigators might get the big chiefs worried. Any regular on ME forums know what the score is.

[Obama57]

(Note a conceptual similarity with SFO 777 auto thrust; it's so much easier to blame the human, demand more training, vigilance, monitoring; opposed to re-engineering the aircraft to help the often resource limited pilot).

I will admit that Korean Air pilots are usually resource limited, however, it should be noted that San Francisco, that day, was clear and a million, and it was a visual approach, for goodness sake's!

[nicolai]

If I remember correctly the GCAA were widely praised on the UPS 747 crash at Dubai.
I doubt very much any of the big chiefs will try to influence the report.

Findings about the UPS 747 would not have embarrassed any local operators or well connected local airlines, while findings about this could.

All credit to the local investigators if they produce a truly clear and factual report and all credit to the government if it lets them do so. It would show they have advanced their safety culture towards Just and factually based.

As the first major entirely domestic accident - hull loss by home airline at home - in the UAE, the investigation report and process will be used by others not only to form opinions of EK and DXB operations, but also to rate the UAE regulator and safety authorities.

[ACMS]

Mmmmmm, the time line seems to makes sense now after the eye witness Pilot report above......

Hard bounced landing, ATC see it and advise "climb to 4,000' " thinking they were helping ( they were not helping, a very bad time to call the Aircraft which does happen around those parts )
The FO answers this ATC call when he should have been doing other things like MONITORING, they never get TOGA, Gear selected up, they never maintain a positive climb as it's damn hot 49c, perhaps a slight Windshear from the tailwind ( reported 310/11 ) and there you go.........

Ground contact........game over.......

Lucky it's built like a Tank.

[JammedStab]

There is a call by the PM of "go-around thrust set" then "positive climb"

As for the unnecessary calls from ATC, I see it in America with the tower asking for the go-around reason pretty much right away. To all ATC types, don't distract us with unnecessary questions at critical times.

[Cows getting bigger]

..... ATC see it and advise "climb to 4,000' " thinking they were helping ( they were not helping, a very bad time to call the Aircraft which does happen around those parts )


:=


Being a DXB regular, I actually think they are amongst the best controllers in the world.

[ACMS]

Well I guess that depends on which controller is working on the day.

It's not just DXB, it happens all over Asia as well.

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate.

Please tell me why the tower controller thought it necessary to remind the crew to climb to 4,000' whilst still at such a low level so early in the bounce? It's a standard missed approach for goodness sake, they will climb as published to 3,000' If he requires some non standard procedure then he should have advised them before this point earlier....."in event of missed approach climb to non standard 4,000'" for eg...there was NO RUSH.

However having said that the crew should not have answered.....

So wave your finger at them not me.....

[donpizmeov]

You mean like how it is done on the Airbus Glofish? :)

[notapilot15]

I think Crew, Controllers and ARFF teams did a great job individually and collectively.

Also kudos to FDB857 crew for alerting ATC.

We haven't heard from STC, is that normal for a CEO to stay quiet after an operational incident.

[OLDI]

12L / 30R Open again... 30hrs later. Quite an achievement.

[phil gollin]

.

Any news on how the firefighter died ?

[too_much]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0SaqWxvdtYo

Full ATC recording - good quality plus all the diversion calls.

[Super VC-10]

Any news on how the firefighter died ?

Caught in an explosion.

Emirates pilots tried to abort landing when they crashed into Dubai runway | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3721366/Fire-Dubai-International-Airport-Emirates-Airline-passenger-jet-crash-lands.html)

[misd-agin]

Automation dependency? With or without auto throttles and FD pitch mode it's the pilot's responsibility to fly the a/c. Automation should be a backup and not the primary driver of flying.

Removing your hand from the throttles to do what, put two hands on the yoke? I've seen 105 lbs women fly with one hand so I don't understand 250 lbs guys using two hands.

If you push the TOGA and they don't work, or don't push the TOGA buttons, or push the throttles forward and but they are set at a lower power setting (ie CLB or CRZ) which drives them backwards, removing your hand from the throttles removes the tactile warning you'd get if you'd have kept your hand on the throttle.

As an industry we've become over-reliant on automation and are teaching, or accepting, habit patterns (ie hand off of thrust levers) that were unacceptable years ago. Maintaining those standards would have saved, or prevented, many incidents.

[readywhenreaching]

hauled away
https://instagram.com/p/BIrzM5pAQOR/

[Metro man]

Anyone remember the Ansett B743 in Sydney in the mid 1990s ? Landed with the nose gear retracted, Captain tried to reject after touchdown but was prevented by the F/E as the thrust reverser so had already deployed.

[Wirbelsturm]

I wouldn't be too quick to blame automation dependency. The 777 AT system has some well know foibles that are easily overcome and often trained. The situation and the time line will come out eventually. Whether or not we get to see it given the 'sensitivity' of the UAE and the somewhat 'nepotistic' accident and safety investigation system employed remains to be seen.

I certainly don't think any parallels can be drawn with the BA38 as that flight had a long cold soak. Correct me if I'm wrong but the flight from India to Dubai certainly won't have had a cold soak and I'm not sure the fuel would have had time to get below freezing much less close to the freeze point!

Time to wait for the preliminary report methinks.

[Lapida320]

The 777 Windhear Go Around says "Do not change gear or flap configuration until wind shear is no longer a factor".

It would be very important to determine if was a go around or a wind shear manouver. As you well said, during a wind shear must not be any change in the configuration due to the increase of drag. On the other hand, if it was a go around, before gear up y you have to verify positive climb, that in this case could take a while due to the temperature and aircraft weight.

[Julio747]

Julio747 - "Are you suggesting he got a GA command half way through a bounce???? Nonsense...."

It's not nonsense. Our manuals talk about the options after a bounced landing. One is a G/A.

I can understand the FC calling GA after a bounce, just not the tower! (Previous posts said the tower called it).

I cannot understand why the FC would raise the wheels before the go around was safely established. Unless perhaps they thought it was...

[Airbubba]

In the media the 'emergency landing' theme seems to persist despite the updated headlines:

Meanwhile, the pilot and crew have been roundly praised for landing the plane, with initial reports suggesting the pilot asked the airport for permission for a crash landing.

'Emirates pilot looks like he expertly landed the 777, and although there was a fire, still was time for pax [sic] to exit, get away,' Tweeted US-based journalist and aviation blogger Gerry Doyle.

And an Indian journalist for ABP news wrote: 'Passengers on board Emirates flight almost kiss & survive death..Pilot deserves all praises to have managed to save so many lives.'

Also praising the pilot from India, where the flight originated, was Bollywood star Pushkar Jog, who said: 'Emirates EK521 flight crashes after landing at d Dubai airport . Pilot saved 282 lives ..All passengers safe.'

Emirates pilots tried to abort landing when they crashed into Dubai runway | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3721366/Fire-Dubai-International-Airport-Emirates-Airline-passenger-jet-crash-lands.html)

[Deep and fast]

Had the previous aircraft vacated at the go around request? The atc tape seems like a standard go around from atc.

[Wirbelsturm]

'Asked for a crash landing' annnnnd the Tower controller just gave him a normal clearance and a vacate point?

Doesn't sound like he asked for anything out of the ordinary to me! :D

[aussie10]

So I've read it all now... bit of the odd knob polishing drivel going on here!!! Looooong (means very long) landing/lo go around/ over pitch due to thrust/ tail STRIKE (means struck very hard) leading to superhero status for l*cal Cap, and blame on FO and a round of more beatings for the rest of us, Two UAE ac down in 4 months....things go in three's lets hope it stops there, But I doubt it

[suninmyeyes]

It is only when you know about a subject that you realise how absolutely crap the reporting is.


I would like to bet the following were all false reports:


1) The plane was on fire before it landed.
2) The passengers were briefed for an emergency landing
3)The crew forgot to put the gear down
4)The tower told the crew to check the gear was down

[goeasy]

Always possible the PM grabbed the gear leaver instead of flap lever in fright of wake/heavy bounce, and unexpected go around call........

[tdracer]

It is only when you know about a subject that you realise how absolutely crap the reporting is.No, you don't have to be an expert on the subject to realize how bad most reporting is, but it does make it more obvious :rolleyes:
One part that makes zero sense is the idea that they knew they had a gear problem - had they known they were landing gear up they would have told ATC, declared an emergency, and requested that the runway be foamed. Remember the LOT 767 that did a gear up several years back? They didn't even scratch up the aircraft much.

I think the botched go-around theory is the most likely.

[ULMFlyer]

He seemed pretty calm reading back the instruction to climb to 4000 ft. Which brings me to when was that issued, before or after they bounced? In the audio/animation posted by too_much it seems to be before touchdown, but who knows?

[ExRR]

It is only when you know about a subject that you realise how absolutely crap the reporting is.


Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for that rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. ~Erwin Knoll

As on this board there seems to be a rush from many quarters to be first to 'guess' the sequence before basic facts have been established. Newspapers of course want a 'scoop' to sell. I'm not sure of the motives of the erudite posters here. :ugh:

[DaveReidUK]

Had the previous aircraft vacated at the go around request? The atc tape seems like a standard go around from atc.

Listen to the tape again.

ATC told EK565 (the following flight) to go around, not EK521.

[PapaHotel6]

suninmyeyes said:

I would like to bet the following were all false reports:


1) The plane was on fire before it landed.
2) The passengers were briefed for an emergency landing
3)The crew forgot to put the gear down
4)The tower told the crew to check the gear was down

And I would completely agree.

This will not be an overwrought investigation. You can be sure that investigators with access to the relevant recorders have reached their conclusion already in terms of what happened (*why* it happened might take a little longer).

[ex-EGLL]

After listening again, certainly the tower instructs EK565 to go around, but prior to that there is a transmission "521 continue straight ahead......"

That suggests the tower is reacting to a (perceived) go around initiated by 521, and was giving the missed approach instructions (albeit a tad early into the manoeuvre)

[portmanteau]

too much; from ATC tape it seems clear that 521 did not state he was going around nor did he ask to climb to 4000ft. ATC cleared him to land and 20 seconds later told him to " continue straight climb to 4000 feet". 521 acknowledged. I wonder what prompted ATC to give that instruction and where was the aircraft when he gave it?

[portmanteau]

ex-egll, surely it is more likely that ATC instructed 565 to go around after it was clear that 521 was not going to get airborne again otherwise he would have had two aircraft climbing to the same altitude on same heading and in close proximity.

[DaveReidUK]

too much; from ATC tape it seems clear that 521 did not state he was going around nor did he ask to climb to 4000ft.

Well assuming we're not talking about a timely GA necessitated by a blocked runway or a late clearing lander ahead, presumably EK521 was fully occupied aviating and navigating at the time ...

[ex-EGLL]

ex-egll, surely it is more likely that ATC instructed 565 to go around after it was clear that 521 was not going to get airborne again otherwise he would have had two aircraft climbing to the same altitude on same heading and in close proximity.

Agreed, and that's what the tape indicates. In listening to the recording my initial thought was the controller saw EK521 perform a manoeuvre that appeared to be the start of a (pilot initiated) missed approach. The controller then gave EK521 the missed approach routing (NOT an instruction to commence the missed approach). At this stage EK565 was still on approach awaiting landing clearance. When the controller noticed that 521 had hit the ground, among many other things that had to be done, missed approach instructions were then issued to EK565.

As for having two aircraft on the missed approach it shouldn't be too much of an issue, they were separated coming down the approach, they should remain separated going on the missed approach, but a quick turn (when safe) or an altitude restriction should keep it all good.

[Oval3Holer]

My guess:

The call, "Go around, Flaps 20" made by a crewmember
"Set thrust" or "Check thrust" call is not made because it is not required when autothrottle engaged
Autothrottle disconnect switches are pushed rather than the TO/GA switches
No one notices thrust is still at idle
No one notices nor calls the FMA modes, which are not "THRUST" "TO/GA" "TO/GA"
Someone calls "gear up" without having verified a positive rate of climb and/or
Someone raises the gear without having verified a positive rate of climb
Pitch is increased, airspeed decreases and plane settles onto the runway

Just my guess...

[portmanteau]

DR, well yes 521 was fully occupied in the normal business of landing, runway in sight, cleared to land etc. What the tape shows is that ops were proceeding normally; 521 cleared to land, 565 next in line cleared to continue approach. Then ATC sees something which leads to him instructing 521 to climb to 4000 feet. If that had happened 565 would have been given landing clearance but it didnt so 565 is obviously sent round again while 521 is sliding all the way down 12L.

[ATC Watcher]

For the ATC recording on You Tube in post#355 seems to come from a cheap VHF receiver that did not record all transmissions . This is obvious at end of tape where calls are answered by the TWR but the initial call is not recorded. (Possibly due to using different transmitters relays )
The whole thing would make much more sense if EK521 would have declared " EK521 going around" then the ATC transmission : "continue straight ahead climb to 4000" would make sense, the 4000 restriction also make sense especially if you had inbounds descending to 5000 opposite. The investigation will clear this up., plus not really a factor at all in this accident.

[skydler]

too much; from ATC tape it seems clear that 521 did not state he was going around nor did he ask to climb to 4000ft. ATC cleared him to land and 20 seconds later told him to " continue straight climb to 4000 feet". 521 acknowledged. I wonder what prompted ATC to give that instruction and where was the aircraft when he gave it?

How does it "seem clear" from an ATC tape that isn't clear to listen to at all? There are so many incomplete dialogues or indecipherable transmissions on that recording - it's entirely possible tower was responding to a GA call 521 made but the LiveATC receiver didn't pick up due to 521s low altitude and/or obstructions at the time.

I'm amazed how many people here are assuming that this crackly recording from a volunteer's home setup, no doubt several kilometres away through concrete and metal, serves as a whole and complete timeline of events.

[chippy63]

I believe this accident will demonstrate that checking for a positive rate of climb after a bounced landing is NOT enough of a condition to raise the gear.
Ironically, when they raised the gear, there actually was a positive rate.... After the bounce.

There must be a second condition: full thrust obtained by the engines, not just TOGA selected but with engines not spooled up!

But... a pilot should know this instinctively.

Forgive my probably ignorant comment. Does instrument lag enter the equation or are the aircrew relying on external observations, looking out of the window?

[lambert]

So that is the question - what did ATC see??

[FIRESYSOK]

At my airline (not EK) I routinely fly with people who call "positive rate" without so much as a look at the baro altitude tape/rad alt. These are mainly light twin guys who have not been taught properly and think getting the gear up is the end-all-be-all. Poorly trained, and not really 'switched on' types it seems.

If you look at an IVSI during rotation it can indicate a slight, momentary descent before settling up into the positive region. Simply a VSI pointing above zero is not an indication of a positive climb. For all one knows the mains haven't come off the ground yet. Gear-lock solenoids makes a nice click when the weight is off wheels, but again does not mean you won't settle back onto the earth with a windshear or engine failure.

bottom line; use all cues available including looking out the window. Airmanship.

[Lonewolf_50]

bottom line; use all cues available including looking out the window. Airmanship. At night over the water, the call "three rates of climb" meant altimeter, rad alt, and VSI all indicating increasing altitude. In a 777 cockpit (I have never flown one) what does the call out for "positive rate" mean that you have checked:
VSI?
Altitude Increase?
Rad Alt?
All three?

[lomapaseo]

It is only when you know about a subject that you realise how absolutely crap the reporting is.


I would like to bet the following were all false reports:


1) The plane was on fire before it landed.
2) The passengers were briefed for an emergency landing
3)The crew forgot to put the gear down
4)The tower told the crew to check the gear was down

Thank you for that post

We seem to be wasting our posting time here with presuming to believe some of the ignorant news reports prior to confirmation by investigators.

I'm sure one can pare the theories down quite a bit by confirming or denying the facts in the post quoted.

Until then lets try to get some confirmation with better sources, We know what can go wrong but don't know yet what went wrong.

[evansb]

..but this is, after all, a rumour forum. Wasting time is pretty well what this is all about, don'tcha think?

[BuzzBox]

In a 777 cockpit (I have never flown one) what does the call out for "positive rate" mean...?

According to our 777 FCOM:
'Verify a positive rate of climb on the altimeter and call “POSITIVE RATE.”'

According to our 777 FCTM:
'Retract the landing gear after a positive rate of climb is indicated on the altimeter.'

Our Airbus manuals are worded differently:
'Announce positive climb, when the vertical speed indication is positive and radio height has increased.'

[bobdxb]

According to our 777 FCOM:
'Verify a positive rate of climb on the altimeter and call “POSITIVE RATE.”'

According to our 777 FCTM:
'Retract the landing gear after a positive rate of climb is indicated on the altimeter.'

Our Airbus manuals are worded differently:
'Announce positive climb, when the vertical speed indication is positive and radio height has increased.'


This is all correct when u fly in normal conditions, when things go wrong PIC will callout what he want, therefore we need to wait until investigators listen to CVR and make judgment who to blame....

After all I might say regardless who's fault it is I am happy all survived.

[blimey]

If you cannot tell the difference between the two incidents then I hope you are not flight deck crew.

IanW - let's concentrate on the similarities with SQ and EK and any one of a number of situations where hard lessons have been learned: a fire in an airframe containing tonnes of flammable liquid, and the value of precious seconds.

Give me the EK crew's response any time.

[tdracer]

Forgive my probably ignorant comment. Does instrument lag enter the equation or are the aircrew relying on external observations, looking out of the window?


There is obviously some processing lag in the instruments, but for the important stuff (e.g. altitude) it's small - on the order of a tenth of a second.

[grimmrad]

In this article linked earlier (Australian co-pilot Jeremy Webb escaped Emirates plane crash in Dubai (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/australian-copilot-jeremy-webb-ran-for-life-after-emirates-plane-crash-landing-and-caught-fire-in-dubai/news-story/a0a918eafb6c26456c7bcb9649f0fd2d)) is a picture of the aircraft from behind showing clear damage at the tail indicating contact with the ground only possible I assume at higher pitch? I am not a commercial pilot but could that indicate that they were increasing pitch for a GA without enough thrust and then settled down tail first on the runway...?

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/015c9020a284ed9ce7d56bee56bcab59

[vapilot2004]

I slammed the throttles forward attempting a G/A but the aircraft didn't respond. Control was marginal and I didn't call for gear up as we continued marginally uncontrolled descent.. ......Mystery sheet happens in aviation.

Cap Doug, "aircraft didn't respond" I am guessing due to spool up and wind shear? Engines did respond, however, correct? The reason I ask is the TLA resolvers (self-powered) and FADEC systems on this aircraft are isolated and self-contained, and self-monitoring with dual redundancy on all of the above per engine as I am sure you know. Just looking for clarification, thank you.

Always possible the PM grabbed the gear leaver instead of flap lever in fright of wake/heavy bounce, and unexpected go around call........

Different grip and movement, one would think muscle memory would have prevented this from happening if the PM's mental intention was flaps first.

(Note a conceptual similarity with SFO 777 auto thrust; it's so much easier to blame the human, demand more training, vigilance, monitoring; opposed to re-engineering the aircraft to help the often resource limited pilot).

I will admit that Korean Air pilots are usually resource limited, however, it should be noted that San Francisco, that day, was clear and a million, and it was a visual approach, for goodness sake's!

I chalk that one up to a line training SNAFU. It is a known human factors issue.

[gatbusdriver]

A couple of people have already made reference to it, Wirbelstrum being one of them. I have since trawled my manuals and can only find one reference in the BFCTM. I thought the info I was looking for was in the FCOM Automatics! I am sure there is some logic along the lines of.......if you are less than 5' for more or less than 2 seconds one condition will not give you FD guidance and the other will not give you thrust, requiring manual input.....buggered if I can find the reference!

Regards

GBD

[ACMS]

Crickey there are a lot of duplicate replies in here.

Can I please suggest you all read the thread before simply saying the same things over and over again.

Does anyone have anything NEW?

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

One of the things in all of my career as an Mil ATCO was this ingrained mantra of AVIATE-NAVIGATE-COMMUNICATE (mentioned earlier by DaveReid I believe).

Bouncing down the runway then there will be a great deal of "aviating" going on, but zero need for any navigation and perhaps a great need to communicate.

Perhaps it is time to consider changing this to AVIATE-COMMUNICATE-NAVIGATE. After all, there are folk on the end of the radio who can help with the latter part. Sadly we couldn't be of much help in the aviating bit but certainly bailed a few out of grief with the navigation part, but only after they had wasted time trying to sort it themselves when they were at their busiest.

I often discussed this with FJ pilots and it was always a very interesting debate. The worrying part was that the most common response for doing it the A-N-C way was "well...that's how it has always been done".

I fully understand that there will be times when A-N-C is appropriate but I would suggest there are more occasions when A-C-N would be the sensible option.

[Back2Final]

Tha ATC recording is probably from ATC Live. From listening to other airports on the website it doesn't stay on 1 frequency but jumps around to a couple frequencies in use at the airport. You don't get a complete picture of all transmissions, so careful making any conclusions through this median.

[Airbubba]

It is only when you know about a subject that you realise how absolutely crap the reporting is.

I would like to bet the following were all false reports:

4)The tower told the crew to check the gear was down

I think the widely reported, but erroneous, media item about the tower gear check came from an early posting on the Aviation Herald which Simon has now corrected.

From the comment thread on the AV Herald EK521 article:

ATC call
By John smith on Thursday, Aug 4th 2016 07:46Z

ATC call is "good afternoon, continue approach, plan to vacate M9" I can understand how that sounds a little like the gear, but it's a standard ATC call

@ John Smith Aug 4th 07:46z
By Simon Hradecky on Thursday, Aug 4th 2016 08:55Z

Thanks a lot for your heads up. A review of the recording indeed showed, in connection with the reply of the crew, that your reading of the recording is correct, several (trained) listeners involved by AVH and myself were absolutely certain this was a reminder regarding the landing gear until your possible interpretation arrived.

[underfire]

The Western Australian has used the videos from this incident to create a video on leaving your OH baggage behind and properly evacuating an ac.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/32240131/emirates-passengers-risked-lives-to-save-baggage/#page1

[mr ripley]

Dubai ATC don't make a ''check gear' call. What they will do is tell you where they wish you to vacate the runway.
Inadvertant AT disconnect is unlikely in a 777.
Aviate Navigate Communicate always for me.

[stilton]

I see that evacuating passengers were burning their feet on the 49C tarmac.


Not a good idea to be in bare feet on take off or landing, always leave your shoes on.
You never know.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Perhaps it is time to consider changing this to AVIATE-COMMUNICATE-NAVIGATE.


Umm....perhaps it's not..

:ugh:

[pattern_is_full]

I see that evacuating passengers were burning their feet on the 49C tarmac. Not a good idea to be in bare feet on take off or landing, always leave your shoes on.I thought required SOP for using the evacuation slides was "Shoes OFF".

To avoid tearing and deflating the slide, or catching a foot in a crevice or fold and breaking a leg.

Or is this like grabbing luggage - "I'll do what is best for my feet - and screw the SOPs and everyone else!"

[VSB via OL]

I see that evacuating passengers were burning their feet on the 49C tarmac.


Not a good idea to be in bare feet on take off or landing, always leave your shoes on.
You never know.
Stilton - yup I always leave my shoes on - I always wonder why some pax settle in, shoes off, blankets on, eye shades on before we've even left the gate.

Flew SAA for the first time in a looooonnnnggg time last month - thought their policy of NO Blankets taxi/TO/Land was brilliant

[Wannabe Flyer]

I fly EK all the time & on each & every flight regardless of the class of service at push back the cabin crew do the following

1) Ask you to disconnect cell phone charging & put away loose cables
2) Put your shoes on
3) Every piece of hand luggage no matter how small put into a bin & not even in front of you
4) Every glass cup towel news paper is asked to be tucked away
5) in Economy blankets are usually not there on the sub continent flights & are handed out on demand post take off. US & Europe flights they are in place on your seat.
6) Kids are firmly asked to sit in place.

[NSEU]

I thought required SOP for using the evacuation slides was "Shoes OFF".

Perhaps if you were wearing high heels. Our seat pocket safety cards used to specify leaving shoes on for takeoff and landing, so I took this to mean that you'd need to keep them on during an evac.
At what point would you take off your shoes? Personally, I'd prefer running over burning pieces of twisted metal and plastic in sturdy, enclosed shoes, thanks (and I remember a time when check-in staff would ask pax to put on sensible shoes if they turned up at the desk in less-than-suitable footwear).

[DanielP]

Hi,

In answer to a previous question, looking at a 777-200 drop test, it took about 20secs to retract main landing gear fully.

Daniel

[planoramix]

B777 - Rejected Landing

If a go-around is initiated before touchdown and a touchdown occurs continue with normal go-around procedures. If a go-around is initiated AFTER touchdown:

- MANUALLY advance the thrust levers to go-around thrust.
- TO/GA switches are INHIBITED.
- Autothrottle is NOT available.
- Autobrakes disarm.
- Speedbrake Lever stows.
- CONFIG FLAPS warning will occur.

Maintain Flap configuration

At VREF rotate normally.

Once safely airborne press TO/GA switches.

Perform normal go-around.

[langleybaston]

QUOTE

I see that evacuating passengers were burning their feet on the 49C tarmac

Hotter than that .............. air temp is driven by surface temp, and a blacktop is hottest of all.

Much hotter than that!

[Capn Bloggs]

I thought required SOP for using the evacuation slides was "Shoes OFF".

To avoid tearing and deflating the slide, or catching a foot in a crevice or fold and breaking a leg.
"High Heels Off".

I agree with NSEU. Leave your shoes on. Less likely to fall in a crevice than a smaller, more malleable, bendable foot.

[ACMS]

Singing....."The comments in this thread go round and round, round and round....."

For the love of ........please read above and stop repeating old ideas and thoughts.....

PLEASE.

[Doors to Automatic]

Moderators, given its size would it be possible to split this thread into two? One thread to discuss the accident and the other to discuss the evacuation issues?

[wiggy]

planoramix did you copy and paste this post? If so where did it come from?

Be interesting to see if there's a source, simply because that "procedure" (and the comments/notes) ties in exactly with our teaching on handling baulked landings, as is practised in the sim from time to time...however I'm not sure I've ever seen it written in the manuals.

Edit to add after another search: Best I can find is that the 777 FCTM mentions that the manoeuver is "trained and evaluated by some operators" (my emphasis), says that "the FCOM/QRH does not contain a procedure or maneuver titled Rejected landing" and then refers you to a narrative on "Go-Around after Touchdown", elsewhere in the FCTM, which fills in a lot of the gaps but (as stated) there seems to be no procedure published by Boeing..

[BuzzBox]

The procedure that was quoted is exactly as written in our B777 FCOM - Normal Procedures/Go-Around and Missed Approach: Rejected Landing.

[CDRW]

In terms of the Go Around balked landing does this not seem similar to the SQ debacle in Munich a few years ago???

Those levers on the pedestal are not hand rests!!!

[ETOPSOK]

I teach bounce recovery training in the 777 at my carrier.

1. Re-establish a "landing attitude" (~4 to 5 degrees pitch) to prepare for a possible second contact with the runway.
2. MANUALLY advance the thrust levers to GA thrust limit.
3. When airborne and climbing select TOGA
4. Command "Flaps 20"
5. (PM) calls positive rate off altimeter
6. (PF) call "Gear Up, check missed approach altitude"
7. 400 ft - check roll mode
8. 500 ft A/P on
9. 1000' - Speed up and clean up.

We emphasize not to retract the gear until you are sure you are climbing away from the runway. Hitting TOGA on the runway won't engage the auto throttles into G/A Thrust nor change your flight director pitch commands. However, once airborne and climbing, TOGA works fine. Of particular note is that a SINGLE PUSH of TOGA on any G/A commands a thrust that will give you "approximately 2000'/min VSI) for passenger comfort. With both engines running, you have to hit TOGA twice to get true G/A thrust.

[guadaMB]

After reading all the thread, I find something missing (possibly because there's no way to match the puzzle).
This is a correct TIMELINE.
Timing of events is ESSENTIAL in these cases.
We've got a misunderstood ATC recording, a partial video of an EVAC procedure, etc. Better no mention the possible mess in cockpit when tings went wrong...
Putting all the clues TOGETHER in the right tempo could give to all of us a better "approach" the the real things that happened.
In the meanwhile, all is timewasting...

[wiggy]

Thanks Buzz, looks like this might indeed be a company "thing" ( which TBF is what our FCTM says), since as far as I can see it's not published procedure in any of our docs.

Guess we can come back to this if it is shown to be relevant to the accident.

[bsieker]

[...] we need to wait until investigators listen to CVR and make judgment who to blame....

(my emphasis)

It would appear you haven't read many actual accident reports. They all explicitly state in the beginning that the purpose is not to apportion blame, but to find causes and thereby prevent a recurrence, as mandated by ICAO Annex 13.

Accident investigators most emphatically do not make judgments who to blame.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Apologies to all. I didn't make my original post clear (I failed to communicate effectively), it was late and I put my error down to fatigue.

My post was triggered by a comment made by David Reid and not so much this incident at DBX. I fully appreciate that whilst on that runway then NAVIGATE and COMMUNICATE were completely irrelevant.

The point I was trying to make was that there is the AVIATE>NAVIGATE>COMMUNICATE train of thought and I don't believe that is always the best course to take, and as I said, it always led to a good debate.
AVIATE will always be first, no doubt whatsoever, but there will be many occasions when the communication aspect should take priority over the navigation aspect.

All I was trying to do was to generate some thought and debate about something that is ingrained and perhaps need to be considered.

[Squawk_ident]

Here the link to the UAE AIP for those interested.
To find the OMDB (Dubai Intl.) browse in the left panel to find the AERODROME(AD) section
then AD2 and OMDB ---> OMDB AD2.24 CHARTS RELATED...
All the plates inside are in PDF.
UAE 521 was initially following the BUBIN Arrival and vectored to the 12L ILS Approach.

https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/aip/current/AIRACs/2016-P04/html/index-en-GB.html

[glofish]

I teach bounce recovery training in the 777 at my carrier.

some problems to it:

1. Re-establish a "landing attitude" (~4 to 5 degrees pitch) to prepare for a possible second contact with the runway.

Especially in hot conditions with an underpowered aircraft, the situation will look more as a impending stall than a bounce recovery. Therefore giving pitch values is delicate. With 5 degs a -300 will fall out of the air.

For such situations, i suggest (not teach) to apply the GPWS "pull up" warning procedure. Because it's something we train quite often and will save your day.

2. MANUALLY advance the thrust levers to GA thrust limit

Give it all it has, again as per "pull up", don't chase any value.

3. When airborne and climbing, select TOGA

Note that it is difficult to press the TOGA switch when desperately pressing the thrust levers full forward, due to the angle. We should train to call the PM to press the switch, call out the FMA and engage the AT again.

The rest is as per normal GA.

Of particular note is that a SINGLE PUSH of TOGA on any G/A commands a thrust that will give you "approximately 2000'/min VSI) for passenger comfort. With both engines running, you have to hit TOGA twice to get true G/A thrust.

Not entirely true. You will get full GA thrust if the aircraft does not get 2000'/min. As this is ample to feel safe, a second hit is not important and should not be chased for.


For such threatening situations, what i often suggest is:

Don't go for modes, go for moves.

Move the levers and yokes yourself, you can check the automation/FMA later

[formationdriver]

Cazalet33

Yours is of the most valuable sentences for people who understand, on this thread.
Reminds me a bit of the AF flight at CDG some time ago that barely escaped... They did a G/A w/o moving the thrust levers to the TOGA position. Went down on the ILS to 63'. But escaped. NO SUCH LUCK this time.
Hello:
Could you pls share date and AC registration of AF snafu at CDG ? Interested to see if BEA reported it. tnx. fly safe.

[lederhosen]

There is a lot of stuff on here which seems unlikely as has already been pointed out. There are however some things which seem pretty factual.

The captain was local with 7000 hours (sounds ok but probably a newish captain). The first officer was a Qantas guy on loan with again lots of hours, one year at Emirates (so in reality not too much 777 time).

The weather was 49c with windshear and low QNH all affecting performance. The position of the gear, communication etc. indicate a go-around was being attempted. Everyone got off alive, which shows how solid Boeing build them and what a great job the cabin crew did given the pictorial evidence.

Go-arounds are one of the worst flown manoeuvers in airline flying. Autothrottle logic as a contributing factor has caught people out on several occasions, for example Turkish in Amsterdam and Asiana in SFO. There does seem to be a possible scenario developing.

[Mariner]

Good post Glofish. Fly the airplane.

The rumor I heard from insiders was that it was a complete handling f@# up.
That, combined with the not-so-stellar performance of a straight -300 and the high pressure altitude, did them in.

But once in a while these things happen, bottom line is that everyone got out in one piece. Good work by the cabin crew.
Real sad the firefighter died.

And for the pax carrying their carry-on off the plane, we'd better get used to it, fact of life.

[portmanteau]

The time period we are talking about lasts only 55 seconds.
521 came on to the Tower frequency 13 seconds after tape started. (as shown on video)
At start + 14 Twr acknowledges.....plan to vacate at M9
At start + 20 521 acks
At start + 26 Twr clears aircraft to land
At start + 32 521 acks
At start + 35 565 checks in with Twr at 6 miles
At start + 38 Twr acks...plan to vacate at M9
At start + 42 565 acks
At start + 46 Twr tells 521 continue straight climb to 4000 feet
At start + 48 521 acks
At start + 1 min 08 secs Twr tells 565 to go around

The crash landing is underway by now. The transmissions can be clearly heard and match the sub-titles. The only time in which 521 might have made a go around call
would have been in the gap between the end of 565's ack at + 42 and Twr's climb call to 521 at + 46. 2 to 3 seconds at most. There was no such call nor any indication of simultaneous transmissions. One conclusion must be that Twr saw some reason not to continue to land and wasted no words or time in telling aircraft to climb away.

[guadaMB]

Hi, PORTMANTEAU

1.- If the records have passed some kind of "supervision" of the UAE authorities I'm not so confident on the real contents.
2.- When I mention the "timing", I mean the TOTAL timeline, from that "second zero" to the last crew member to abandon the hull. I think it could be a good amount of minutes...

Coming from military, and having served in SAR all of my career (chopper, navy), I've been in close relation with people in extreme conditions (desperation, anger, resignation, etc) and the EVAC video dosen't seem to me to reflect an EXTREME PANIC inside the a/c.
I guess things weren't "that wrong" for pax or they couldn't take a real idea of what was happening.
There is one sure-thing: the CC were absolutely aware of what they had to do. And they did "hats off".

[ManaAdaSystem]

A sidenote after listening to the tapes:

The words "delay not determined" should be removed from the ATC vocabulatory. It ranks up there with pilots "due to operational reasons we have to, etc, etc.
If there is a crash on the runway, say so. If the ATC radar is down, say so. If will save a number of calls asking for information.

[portmanteau]

guadaMB, You are entitled to your opinion of course, freedom of speech and all that but it is disappointing that you and several others assume automatically that events will be covered up and reports fabricated. I can assure you that Emirates, the airport and the UAE aviation authority are totally professional and will investigate and report completely in accordance with ICAO procedures as they have done many times in the past. Any suggestion that they will not is absolutely out of order.

[kipper the dog]

Portmanteau, your not serious are you???!! I can only assume you wrote your comment with tongue very firmly planted in cheek!!

[slast]

formationdriver:
comment and full report on 2011 Air France B777 event can be accessed at
picma.org.uk/?q=content/2011-b772-cat-3-loss-control-paris-france.

But the original post 326 (by swish266) gets it the wrong way round. It states "Yours is of the most valuable sentences for people who understand, on this thread. Reminds me a bit of the AF flight at CDG some time ago that barely escaped... They did a G/A w/o moving the thrust levers to the TOGA position. Went down on the ILS to 63'. But escaped. NO SUCH LUCK this time., that Captain as PF DID push the thrust levers all"

In fact it was the reverse. The Captain (PF) did not press the TOGA switches but pushed the autothrust disconnect buttons instead. He fully advanced the thrust levers and pulled on the control column. However the autopilot remained engaged and coupled to the glideslope. Consequently the aircraft accelerated with increasing nose down pitch.

The PNF initially concentrated on the G/A reconfiguration, and the relief crew member called the pitch discrepancy from correct G/A attitude. Both pilots then applied nose-up control inputs, pulling 1.84G and disconnecting the autopilot at a minimum Radio Altitude of 63 ft. achieving a maximum pitch angle of 19 deg.

Subsequently the Captain applied nose down inputs while the F/O applied nose up and a second high G oscillation occurred. The gear was finally selected up some 25 seconds after the initial g-around call, at a height of 870ft. and the aircraft positioned for a second Cat 3 autoland.

[4468]

Couple of things to point out, that seem glaringly obvious to me.

A modern jet airliner, adequately handled, should never strike the ground with the gear in any position other than down and locked. I have no idea if that was the case here, but purely from the damage it seems it was not?

A 777, in any configuration, has sufficient thrust in all certified environmental conditions, to climb away from a runway. There has been no mention of lack of available engine power.

We are all human. Even the finest of aviators have bad days! I will be extremely surprised if human factors are not a major contributor here.

There but for the grace of God.

Being the carrier it is, it's difficult not to wonder whether other issues may also have played a part, and may continue into the investigation?

[Lonewolf_50]

Go-arounds are one of the worst flown manoeuvers in airline flying. Autothrottle logic as a contributing factor has caught people out on several occasions, for example Turkish in Amsterdam and Asiana in SFO. Sorry, your adding the unwillingness to pay attention to one's airspeed as an "auto-throttle logic problem" is a reach too far. They weren't 5 or 10 knots slow on final at SFO, they were 35+ knots slow on final. If any of us were even half that slow on final on any check ride we ever flew we would have failed the check ride. Aviate / Navigate / Communicate applies here in spades, since aviate means fly the aircraft, not "wonder what it's doing." Training and habit pattern issue, and for that matter SOPs for a given carrier, contribute to flight deck crew habits on final.

Which brings us to this go around after the wheels touched.
Is that trained?
How often is it trained?
How often during the sim training are various errors made?
What are the most common errors?


If you are a Professional Pilot, how well do you know your aircraft systems?
If you know how it works, you can make it work. If you don't know how it works, you'll sometimes have difficulty in making it work. That's true for machines less complicated than a 777 as well.


@keepitrealok: thanks for your points on A-N-C.

[formationdriver]

formationdriver:
comment and full report on 2011 Air France B777 event can be accessed at
picma.org.uk/?q=content/2011-b772-cat-3-loss-control-paris-france.

But the original post 326 (by swish266) gets it the wrong way round. It states "Yours is of the most valuable sentences for people who understand, on this thread. Reminds me a bit of the AF flight at CDG some time ago that barely escaped... They did a G/A w/o moving the thrust levers to the TOGA position. Went down on the ILS to 63'. But escaped. NO SUCH LUCK this time., that Captain as PF DID push the thrust levers all"

In fact it was the reverse. The Captain (PF) did not press the TOGA switches but pushed the autothrust disconnect buttons instead. He fully advanced the thrust levers and pulled on the control column. However the autopilot remained engaged and coupled to the glideslope. Consequently the aircraft accelerated with increasing nose down pitch.

The PNF initially concentrated on the G/A reconfiguration, and the relief crew member called the pitch discrepancy from correct G/A attitude. Both pilots then applied nose-up control inputs, pulling 1.84G and disconnecting the autopilot at a minimum Radio Altitude of 63 ft. achieving a maximum pitch angle of 19 deg.

Subsequently the Captain applied nose down inputs while the F/O applied nose up and a second high G oscillation occurred. The gear was finally selected up some 25 seconds after the initial g-around call, at a height of 870ft. and the aircraft positioned for a second Cat 3 autoland.
Many thanks.

[Aluminium shuffler]

4468, your post indicates that you have never flown into an airport with severe windshear, as can happen frequently. To have variable winds, not just gusting, means you can have a strong headwind suddenly become a strong tailwind, losing 40, 50kts or even more. That has nothing to do with certification or pressure altitudes. Start a go around from a bounce and have a 40kt airspeed loss from wind change and you are not going upwards, regardless of which engine spec or what weight you are.

[luvly jubbly]

What's with all the systems knowledge d!ck swinging on here?

What has a vnav engine out anomaly got to do with this accident? Or AF or SQ?

Why don't you muppets start an "I know more than you do" thread in the tech section and leave this thread for relevant info.

I'm sick of reading through all this crap.....

LJ

[A Squared]

What's with all the systems knowledge d!ck swinging on here?

What has a vnav engine out anomaly got to do with this accident? Or AF or SQ?

Had you read the post for comprehension, you'd have noticed that a VNAV engine out scenario was not the only place this bug could manifest itself. And it could to limit thrust to cruise thrust in a go-around. If you can't see the possible relevance, you may not understand the incident at hand.

[guadaMB]

Things that are puzzleing me:

Isn't there ANY other airport videos (except the ones taken by possible pax or civilians at the airport public facilities, mainly throug windows)?????
Isn't there ANY records of the ramp sector? And the runway?
And ANY from the inbound sector (this meaning the planes APPROACHING) just to determine if the T7 came with or without the gear extended, for example????

These UAE's are crystal-clear giving info... Sure.

[ArchieBabe]

The report...should prove interesting (in so much as, how it gets compiled).

"On completion of the investigation, GCAA shall prepare and publish the final investigation report," said Ismaeil Al Hosani, AAIS assistant director general.

The authority also warned against sharing videos, news or pictures of the accident on social media.

"Sharing such practices is considered to be irresponsible and disrespectful to the victims and is punishable under UAE law," it said

No speculation. No comments. No pictures. Not even a "pre lim" report.

Of note, Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed Al-Maktoum (chairman at EK) is also a board member at the GCAA.



What will the report say ?
My guess "pilot error". A standard procedure.... badly executed, by a "well rested" crew.


Edit 1 Anyone come across the rosters of the crew yet ?

Edit 2 And will Emirates "Fatigue Committee" provide info in the GCAA report as well as EK's existing "Fatigue Management System".

[ArchieBabe]

"Isn't there ANY other airport videos....."

No doubt there is.
But you'll not get to see them. This is "Dubai".
Leak them, and you'll be arrested.

[1helicopterppl]

I am a retired senior crew member & can fully understand all the comments regards passengers taking their belongings with them in an emergency evacuation. However, I think we should consider the culture of passengers from this region where the aircraft was flying. I operated many flights from the area & there was always an issue with cabin baggage. When all the overhead bins were full in one cabin we would utilise bins that were less full in other cabins. The culture of passengers in this region made them totally averse to handing you their bag for safe keeping unless it was stowed in the locker above their seat. so I'm not at all surprised passengers were trying to remove items from the overhead bins in an emergency. Also my airline introduced a new initiative to speed up boarding where a second yellow tagged bag was allowed to be put under the seat in front of you. We all know what happens to loose items in the cabin & bags in the overhead bins when they open in an emergency.
Furthermore, passengers from all regions rarely consider others welfare or safety.

This is a Pilot's rumour network so I would like to say thank you to all ppruners who have recognised the great job by the cabin crew, a completely successful evacuation.

[efatnas]

Some nice comments on bouncing I think. I'm on a B767 not B777 and don't know too much about the TOGA switch but it looks like it's easiest just to handfly the airplane pitch/power and think about the rest on the way up. Looks like we will see a bounced landing scenario in future training events. I'm a friend of low automation close to the ground anyway as long as the Wx is ok.

[speed13ird]

As regards Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. This was subsumed long ago by the mantra, Trigger Action and Callout, Magenta Line, Automatic Flight.

Throw in a dose of FMC preoccupation during the final approach and don't bother looking out of the window, oh and don't get caught physically covering the Control Column and Thrust Levers....we don't do that any more.

[camel]

Thank you Del Boy .#439....

+1

[guadaMB]

1helicopterppl said:

"This is a Pilot's rumour network so I would like to say thank you to all ppruners who have recognised the great job by the cabin crew, a completely successful evacuation".

Agree and a plus.

And about the hand-luggage, overhead bins and all the discussion about:

In THIS accident-incident, at last, no one seriously injured in spite of all the jam caused by the pretention (acceptable in humans) of saving some personal belongings...

[golfyankeesierra]

I see too many comments like
Especially in hot conditions with an underpowered aircraft,
I don't believe for a second that an OAT of 50C has any effect.
Off course at max TO weights and with an engine inop, performance is affected but with 2 engines operating and at typical landing weights there is so many power in a heavy twin that it is in fact more a challenge to control your aircraft then a worry to have not enough performance.. even at 50C!
I believe a single TOGA push gives you 2000FPM, whether it is -10C or +50C..
Any 773 driver cares to comment?

[wiggy]

G Y S :}

I'll stick my neck out....I can't speak for the Roller -300 or Emirates ops/procedures but by way of illustration for the GE -300 at 50 celsius, sea level airfield, the landing climb limit weight ( for a flap 25 or 30 ldg) is just under 300 tonnes, that's vs. a normal max landing weight (for us) of around 250 'ish tonnes....

In other words as you say with all running normally, at the end of a normal sector, at normal landing weights the performance manual would have you believe the -300 GE at least would have had plenty of power available to cope with most things that could be thrown at it....

At the risk of verging into speculation I wouldn't expect the Trent engined version to be grossly different, the 300's don't have a reputation for being under powered......

[luvly jubbly]

G Y S :}

I wouldn't expect the Trent engined version to be grossly different, the 300's don't have a reputation for being under powered......



Say what? Have you flown it in Arabian summer?

[gatbusdriver]

I have flown through several Arabian Summers and do not have a problem with wiggys statement.

At normal landing weights there is no issue (or at least none that I have experienced). The only issue performance wise is trying to take the -300 to JFK if it is delayed and the temperature starts rising!

Regards,

GBD

[golfyankeesierra]

Say what? Have you flown it in Arabian summer?
Yes, I do have time in the sandbox albeit in another heavy twin.
And that is exactly the reason I ask.
With both engines operating there never is a problem, certainly not at typical landing weight.
As I said, excess of performance is usually more an issue then underperformance..
But an EK 773 pilot will be most qualified to comment, I stand to be corrected.

Edit: sorry, thought all -300 were ER's, didn't know there are "straight -300's"

[skkm]

G Y S :}

I'll stick my neck out....I can't speak for the Roller -300 or Emirates ops/procedures
At the risk of verging into speculation I wouldn't expect the Trent engined version to be grossly different, the 300's don't have a reputation for being under powered......

They certainly have that reputation where I am. ERs no — but straight -300s, yes. Landing climb limit weight at 50°C/0 PA is nowhere near 300 tonnes - or 250 for that matter.

[lederhosen]

Lonewolf I think you are missing the point. The training captains in Amsterdam and SFO both failed to spot deteriorating airspeed with the autothrottle in a mode where they obviously thought they had speed protection. Fairly obviously this was not the main cause of those accidents, but a contributory factor as perhaps misunderstanding the logics of the automatics (as suggested by others) may have been here. In this case there seems to have been a lack of thrust causing the aircraft to sink back onto the runway. Sufficient thrust was either spooled up too late or not at all. I can share your frustration that hand flying skills have deteriorated so far. But the reality is that experienced crews with many thousands of hours (or perhaps because of many thousands of hours using the automatics) do not seem capable of basic stuff. Human factors design of procedures and training needs to take account of this. So far I have not seen a lot of progress on this, with perhaps the exception of A350 conversion starting with some automatics off flying in the sim.

[wiggy]

Note to myself ... :ugh: :ugh:

Fair cop guys, humble apologies for not reading the small print and going off at a missleading tangent.. So is somebody else going to stick their neck out and provide the relevant numbers for the aircraft in question?

[ArchieBabe]

Scroll down, video showing the a/c just as it comes to a complete stop.

Emirates plane crash fire: Live updates as hundreds gather for hero firefighter's funeral after jet crash-lands in Dubai - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/emirates-plane-crash-fire-live-8550369)

Still nothing conclusive as to why the go-around in the first place.
Or when the Missed Approach was called/executed.

I assume that the execution of the Missed Approach was "complete", the gear was retracted

[fliion]

Golfy to answer your question on #449

B777 FCOM 4.20.17

"Pushing either TO/GA switch activates a go-around. The mode remains active even if the airplane touches down while executing the go–around."

However and this is relevant in a GA immediately after touchdown

"The TO/GA switches are inhibited when on the ground and enabled again when in the air for a go–around or touch and go."

[aterpster]

ArchieBabe:

I assume that the execution of the Missed Approach was "complete", the gear was retracted.

Where I worked the gear was retracted on a missed approach or balked landing once a stable positive rate of climb was achieve.

[Julio747]

Whatever way you look at this, pilot error has to be a factor. (And we all know pilots are human right?)

Maybe toga was pressed but was disabled. Maybe they held the thrust leavers against the stops.

But one glaring error was putting the wheels up!

[PukinDog]

They certainly have that reputation where I am. ERs no — but straight -300s, yes. Landing climb limit weight at 50°C/0 PA is nowhere near 300 tonnes - or 250 for that matter.


If it's nowhere near 300 or even 250, then what is the actual weight limit to achieve min Landing Climb performance at 50C/0' for the straight -300?

Is there some suggestion based on aircraft "reputation" that WAT limits were exceeded in this case? Scorching hot summer temps in Dubai/ME is predictable and operating in them routine for operations based there. Until proven otherwise I would assume that even this straight -300 was dispatched legally, including at a weight that met all T/O, Approach, and Landing Climb requirements.

[TwinJock]

According to our 777 FCOM:
'Verify a positive rate of climb on the altimeter and call “POSITIVE RATE.”'

Disagree, our FCOM states "POSITIVE CLIMB", definitely not rate!

[Guidxb]

If you guys pay attention, almost all the video links posted here have mysteriously been deleted.. EK media department working hard I guess. Lets hope they don't interfere on the investigation at least.

[glofish]

The Landing Climb Weight of a 777-300 with Trent 892 outside temp 50deg and QNH 997 is ~ 245tons, only corrected for pressure alt, not for density alt which would paint a more bleak picture .... (MTOW 299'370 / MLW 237'682)
The GA Climb Gradient is around 2%.

Having flown that bird many times in these conditions leaves me with some doubts about these values though .....

[Binder]

And that climb gradient is single engine presumably?

[Wally777]

Disagree, our FCOM states "POSITIVE CLIMB", definitely not rate!
[QUOTE]Disagree, our FCOM states "POSITIVE CLIMB", definitely not rate!/QUOTE]

Interesting 28 years ago I joined my current airline and had to learn 'Positive Climb' after using 'Positive Rate' in my old company. A couple of years ago we went 'Back to Boeing' and so now it is 'Positive Rate' again - The circle of life..............

[Derfred]

Umm.. At 50 degrees you are correcting for density altitude. Don't need to correct twice.

[Mr Good Cat]

The other significant (possibly more so) factor about RR Trent engines is that they take a LOT longer to spool up as they are 3-spool as opposed to the GE which is 2-spool...

Plenty of time on all six of the 777 variants, and the go-around feels very different on 773 versus a 77W (ER)...

[4468]

Aluminium shuffler. Your post:
4468, your post indicates that you have never flown into an airport with severe windshear, as can happen frequently.
Indicates you have not read my post.

I referred to all CERTIFIED environmental conditions. AFAIK, no a/c are 'certified' for landing in 'severe windshear'! (Are you aware of the definition of severe?) If that is what you are alleging occurred, then I would counsel you to tread very careful indeed. The added complication you would of course need to address is that the gear seems to have been retracted? Not part of any windshear procedure of any aircraft manufacturer!

As for the suggestions that the B777-300 is unfit for operations in DXB in the summer, again I would suggest great caution. Not that I believe it would be allowed/tolerated, but the allegation is a very serious one!

[suninmyeyes]

It is pointless to try to analyse the goaround performance of an aircraft that probably had less than 10 tonnes of fuel on board and two engines working. Basically it would be very good. That same aircraft could take off from R/W 12L at OMDB with 50C OAT at 300 tonnes and lose an engine at V1 and still drag itself safely into the air conforming with Perf A requirements. So its goaround performance on 2 engines at an estimated weight of 70 tonnes lighter would be pretty good. You can goaround in the flare, it may touch down and trundle along briefly but it lifts off pretty well.

[PukinDog]

It is pointless to try to analyse the goaround performance of an aircraft that probably had less than 10 tonnes of fuel on board and two engines working. Basically it would be very good. That same aircraft could take off from R/W 12L at OMDB with 50C OAT at 300 tonnes and lose an engine at V1 and still drag itself safely into the air conforming with Perf A requirements. So its goaround performance on 2 engines at an estimated weight of 70 tonnes lighter would be pretty good. You can goaround in the flare, it may touch down and trundle along briefly but it lifts off pretty well.
I agree, my point in asking was (since I don't have access to -300 perf manual numbers) to find out why a GA with all engines operating at a lighter landing weight would be such a dicey performance struggle in terms of climb, as some were suggesting, when the same type of aircraft loaded to much higher weights were legally taking off at the same field.

Trundling along, as you say, waiting for spool-up I can certainly see but I'm just not seeing it not having the ability to climb away fairly easily once they're producing GA thrust (assuming the thing was legally dispatched). Bemoaning poorer performance at 50C compared to cooler days of 40C is akin to complaining water is wetter in a monsoon than in a downpour, but either they met the req'd Approach/Landing climb perf number weight at that current temp, or they didn't.

[FE Hoppy]

SUN
Are Emirates CAT 111? If so they should be familiar with low alt GA. Even if not low energy go arounds and WSH go-arounds should be part of recurrent training.

[Old Boeing Driver]

Are there any pictures that show the landing gear after the crash?

Also, How long does it take for the gear to retract on a 777?

Finally, does the gear actually unlock before the gear doors open.

Thanks for any replies.

Regards,

OBD

[Lonewolf_50]

they obviously thought they had speed protection. how well do you know your aircraft?

[totto70]

I can only speak from my own experience a 777 regardless of version with that load does not have performance issues.
Correct me if am wrong, no one has mentioned wake turbulence.
After many years of flying on the region yes it does get bumpy and rough. Windshear possible, I was not there at the time.
Secondly if someone makes a mistake and they do happen even on an isa standard day. In that region sorry beforehand but the culture there makes people lose sleep over a Normal human error, not good.
I am also looking for an answer to what happened in rostov with fly dubai.
My 5 cents worth.
Sandbags filled and helmet on😂😂😂😂😂😂

Note: it is still an airplane at the end regardless of modes and such. If you want to go up you firewall and point the nose up between 10 and 15 degrees.
Yes if you don't press toga you will have to fight the system but otherwise will go up

[chippy63]

There is obviously some processing lag in the instruments, but for the important stuff (e.g. altitude) it's small - on the order of a tenth of a second.

Thanks, tdracer.

[Capn Bloggs]

Especially in hot conditions with an underpowered aircraft, the situation will look more as a impending stall than a bounce recovery. Therefore giving pitch values is delicate. With 5 degs a -300 will fall out of the air.

For such situations, i suggest (not teach) to apply the GPWS "pull up" warning procedure. Because it's something we train quite often and will save your day.

Glofish, curious about your preference for a GPWS escape. IMO, the "~4-5°" was given as a typical landing attitude (which is what Boeing suggest I aim for in my [completely different] type if I bounce it). I assume the idea is that, if the aeroplane slows down further and descends before the power comes up, it will again contact the ground on the wheels.

Pulling the nose higher doing a GPWS escape will only increase the chances of a tailstrike. Firewall power and 3°/second to 20°NU/stick shaker, I suggest, is not what you want to do if you bounce it.

As much as I hate to say it, I think Airbus' "Positive Climb" call is more reflective of what you are looking for than Boeing's "Positive Rate". :{

[underfire]

The people loading the ac would have known the performance conditions at DXB for the landing, and it would have been weight limited accordingly to meet performance.

As far as windshear, I have seen quite a few GA due to WS at this airport, sometimes 4 and 5 ac in a row. One can hardly imagine wheels up at this altitude, more likely stalled with a good tailwind/headwind change

[fliion]

Totto

If you firewall the TLs and pitch up to 15* while MLG still in contact (or sinks into contact ) with ground you will have a tailstrike pulling up through 8.9* on the 773, 10* on the 77W and 12.1* on all the 772s - (struts extended)

The 300 is a special case when it comes to TS & low level GAs.

[autoflight]

"no a/c are 'certified' for landing in severe windshear!" is a point finally emphasised.

Given the likelihood of windshear plus a reported temp of 49C, the landing attempt could have been re-assessed quite a while before touchdown. An unstable approach, initially lower than normal power and high ROD to maintain the glide path might have been additional red flags for this approach.

Certified 2 engine or single engine missed approach capability may not be actually relevant. I would be more interested in reported landing conditions that could be beyond the capacity to safely land. Since windshear can exist for relatively short periods, it is up to that actual crew to be completely in the loop, including a direct report from the previous landed or missed approach aircraft when there is doubt.

There is no shame in an early missed approach, holding, or diversion, even when previous and later aircraft land without incident.

[fdr]

Climb requirements are pretty simple.

14 CFR Part 25.121(d) requires the plane to be able to achieve 2.1% gradient in the conditions, with a critical engine failed, with the gear retracted.

Part 25.119 covers Landing Climb, All Engines operating. Gradient requirement of 3.2%. that is in landing config, e.g., F30, Gear Down. The sub para (a) is pertinent on some aircraft, (the PW4098 was one that could be a long time between wanting and getting, but well within the required periods).

The gradients for the aircraft cover therefore approach configuration engine out, and all engines in full landing configuration. That is rational and works well.

Any assumption that after some millions of hours of operating we suddenly get a plane that cannot achieve a gradient would have to assume some extenuating circumstance well outside of normal operations. High temps are an issue, the reported temp and local temp of an airmass that the aircraft passes by are different, but you will likely find that that is not a big issue in this case. Wind shear equates directly to a change in the CAS as the energy state of the aircraft alters with a time domain delay due to inertia, either increasing it or reducing it depending on the sequence of encounter. In these conditions, again they would have to be rather severe to critically affect the energy state of the aircraft. Increasing tailwind, or reducing headwind result in loss of CAS. Modest shear will alter the performance outcome from an expected outcome such as a pitch attitude that is selected, the flight path then is reduced where CAS is lower than expected. That may seem pretty obvious, but when you rotate you are not necessarily looking at pertinent data, and routine standards evals show that the same is true for the PM case, what they are looking at during the change in flight path is not necessarily what you may expect. Bottom line, pitching up and assuming that the plane will achieve a certain performance is human nature, reinforced by the routine expectancy being matched by reinforcing outcomes, (we don't get surprises that often, fortunately).

On any day, proceduralizing of our processes in the cockpit act as much as a threat to the operation as an enhancement. How often is a checklist item answered without the actual condition being confirmed... "clear left/right!... without anyone looking, standard callouts being made without the requisite action being taken that is supposed to be verified/reinforced by the callout. Sucks to be human, but then humans also can do things that computers cannot do, so it really sucks to be walk-on freight. You get what you pay for...

Emirates is a compliant airline; look at any IOSA audit and you will find that in fact most are. (in fact, almost all are, and that should make one ponder for a moment, and then the moment will be lost in time). Emirates has a public image that is one of competence. Airlines are obliged to balance safety and economics, no matter what PR may say, that is not just the air transport industry, that is every human endeavour, in fact every system in nature that has a choice of actions. We are likely to find not very much was out of the ordinary here; we tend to forget due to the amazing reliability of the global air transport system that very flight involves an extraordinary confluence of things going right, with great demands for perfection. A failure can occur when a number of conditions are just sufficiently outside of normal to act together in concert to result in an unanticipated outcome. Such a failure mode comes from the reality of complex systems having potential for resonance to occur, where stochastic system behaviour of various inputs results in something that is outside of the expected occurring. Such a failure doesn't need active failures, it can occur with a number of within limit conditions just ending up at the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, it just sucks. If that sounds depressing to people that may gain succour from linear or quasi linear causation, it need not be. It indicates that the most important thing we can have in operations is situational awareness, and that means, knowing when it likely to be compromised hints at how to get serious about maintaining system integrity. But, it is much easier to shoot the messenger, that cures the problem immediately, and everyone is satisfied that both justice, and system safety has been satisfied. Unfortunately, the world is not linear, nor quasi linear, and so a similar event will not be avoided.

Wonder how the Emirates management will respond, insight or pavlovian responses.

If resonance appears a strange concept, one should consider their daily experience, or read up on complex systems failures as Ladkin or Hollnagel consider. Aircraft losses are brutal, so is a nuclear power station loss, and similar critical coupled systems.

Flight crew are not served well by rigid SOPs that end up affecting SA. Losing SA is just being human, yet our systems tend to belt the stuffing out of our crews for merely being so.

never dull

[ManaAdaSystem]

If Emirates management is trying to make this accident go away by treatening legal action to those websites that display videos of it, it is a clear indication of how they will conduct the investigation.
It also reveals the unhealty connection between Emirates and DCAA as they have the same leader.

[totto70]

Sorry but no it would not strike
Afm numbers regardless or not the gear is compressed or not is irrelevant. If you bounce your are already halfway up no? If in shear regardless of reason you are having a bad day😊
If your gear is up when pointing the nose up what degrees does then apply?
Either it is a massive cockup or shear/wake. Wait send see.
Here is where transparency would be good
Deleting videos or removing evidence does not really help does it?

[ManaAdaSystem]

If your gear is up when pointing the nose up what degrees does then apply?
Either it is a massive cockup or shear/wake. Wait send see.
Here is where transparency would be good
Deleting videos or removing evidence does not really help does it?

No, it doesn't help.
Before you call this a possible massive cockup, you need to look at the rosters for the two pilots, and how many hours they have been flying monthly for the last years, how many (or few) days off/leave they have had, night duties, etc.
EK management is sitting on a big box full of smelly rosters.
If it is legal, it doesn't mean it's safe.

[bluesideoops]

Wonder if Emirates pressures pilots with 'get homeitis' if this corporate pressure exists could be a major factor as the wind shear may have meant safer option was to divert or go-around...

[Toruk Macto]

You had wide bodies landing on this Rwy every 3 mins before this , was there any reports of shear ?

[FCeng84]

The money question for me is did they have the gear down at any time during this approach? The data Emirates has must address this. Let's hear if they simply came in without extending gear or had the gear down and decided to pull it up at some point.

[SOPS]

I'm surprised the wreckage was removed so quickly. I thought the wreckage would form part of the investigation.

[misd-agin]

Different a/c had a two degree pitch attitude difference for a tail strike for struts compressed or extended so it makes a difference.

[maggot]

You had wide bodies landing on this Rwy every 3 mins before this , was there any reports of shear ?

There's always windshear there in summer
Just how strong... not really microbursts tho

[Judd]

How often is a checklist item answered without the actual condition being confirmed... "clear left/right!... without anyone looking, standard callouts being made without the requisite action being taken that is supposed to be verified/reinforced by the callout


Agree. See it often in the Boeing 737 where the preflight, before start, before taxi and after takeoff checklists have the PM not only doing the majority of the switching but then proceeds to challenge his own actions and responds to his own actions. Makes the true principle of challenge and response a joke. Why Boeing threw out the original challenge by one pilot and response by the other pilot, beats me

[Judd]

Wouldn't be at all surprised if there was confusion in the low altitude attempt at a go-around and someone didn't select full GA thrust for some reason. It would go some way to explaining why it pancaked into the deck

[cooperplace]

If Emirates management is trying to make this accident go away by treatening legal action to those websites that display videos of it, it is a clear indication of how they will conduct the investigation.
It also reveals the unhealty connection between Emirates and DCAA as they have the same leader.

how do you know they are threatening legal action?

[RoyHudd]

Criticism of Middle East Arabic airlines on this or other sites may well be met by legal action folks. Others can concur. Watch out.

(Hardly in the interests of air safety, but that is how it is these days)

The mods may be censoring stuff in your own interest as well as theirs'.

:mad:

[gatbusdriver]

Great post fdr (although I needed a dictionary to read part it)

I think some are getting slightly misled by the reports of windshear. What windshear do you expect to have with the reported winds? +/- 5kts? At worst probably +/- 10kts, enough to possibly cause a bounced landing but I believe people are off the mark thinking this was strong enough to cause the crew any major problems. As has been said before WS reported all runways is quite common at DXB this time of year.

Regards,

GBD

[ArchieBabe]

Has there been an "incident" at DXB ?
After the initial "burst" of (mixed) reportage, there's now nada.

It is a far cry from how Deborah Hersman handled the Asiana 214 crash at SFO.
The NTSB had faced criticism before, so they went for the "transparent" approach. And in my humble view, it worked. What was seen was a competent, open and honest investigation....

....and I wouldn't hold your breathe. You won't be seeing that approach from the GCAA out in the sandpit.

The only "more later" images/information/factoids we have seen, has been via "third parties". Footage and (ATC) audio "supplied" by passengers who happened to be there or websites monitoring the tower. Officially, there has been "nothing".

The Emirates Group Chairman, CEO...the Chairman of Dubai Airports...the Chairman of Dubai Air Navigation Services... and President of the Department of Civil Aviation (the ONE and the SAME) Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed al Maktoum has given a televised statement and a Press Conference....which was a bit like watching a 1980's USSR State Address/Public Information broadcast.
Nobody else sat with him on the platform, as he delivered his monotone monologue, mainly due to the fact that there aren't anymore aviation posts left, that he doesn't already hold.

And other than "the treat" issued by the GCAA for "publishing pictures/film of the crash on Social Media", there has been nothing else "official" forthcoming .

I do worry that "fatigue issues/working practices" at EK may have been a contributing factor in this crash. If they weren't, they still should be fully investigated...and then completely discounted. But what chance is there of that, when the Operator is so closely linked to the Regulator. Surely this a glaringly obvious "conflict of interest"...and it should be highlighted.

Deborah Hersman's Asiana investigation should be congratulated....
...whereas Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed al Maktoum's Emirates 521 investigation (wearing whichever aviation hat he chooses to wear), should be treated with caution.

I just hope, whoever gets the job of catering for the meeting between the chairman/presidents of the airline, the aviation authority, the airport and the navigation services....isn't too disappointed when they realise it just a "meal for one" needed !

[fox niner]

The UAE GCAA has posted an "interesting" tweet on their account:

https://twitter.com/gcaa_uae?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eaut hor

No pics allowed. No vids allowed.

[ManaAdaSystem]

And that Tweet is probably why the Emirates pilots who have been really outspoken about how life in Emirates really is, suddenly have clammed up completely.
Wise move as anything else could end their carreers immediately.
It tells volumes about how they are treated, and should act as a big red flag for any pilots considering a move to Dubai.

[glofish]

Capn Bloggs

Glofish, curious about your preference for a GPWS escape. IMO, the "~4-5°" was given as a typical landing attitude (which is what Boeing suggest I aim for in my [completely different] type if I bounce it). I assume the idea is that, if the aeroplane slows down further and descends before the power comes up, it will again contact the ground on the wheels.

Pulling the nose higher doing a GPWS escape will only increase the chances of a tailstrike. Firewall power and 3°/second to 20°NU/stick shaker, I suggest, is not what you want to do if you bounce it.

I am not trying to reinvent the wheel, or propagate some new technique, the bounced landing technique by Boeing is certainly prevalent. At least as long as we're talking bounces of a few feet.

The MD11 was very prone to bounced landings and had the same procedure in the books. After three hull losses however, there came another suggestion, namely that in such circumstances, especially when the bounce is pronounced and at least one of them went to ~15 feet, a standard go around, without intermediate 4-5degs, might be the better solution, the tail strike degrees becoming less of a problem.

We all concur that go arounds are not the best executed flight procedures, only the "expected" ones in the sim seem to happen smoothly. Most unexpected ones prove to be quite untidy. This especially if two procedures are at choice , like with bounced landings.

A heavy bounce puts you in an awkward position. You are an unknown amount of feet above ground and more often than not, you don't really know why the landing has come to this. Was it unstable? Wind shear? Wake turbulence? Bad technique? Something else? The only thing you know, is that you are hanging in the air with most probably little airspeed left between flight and stall.

If your decision is to go around, which most probably is the good solution, then the next problem is with what technique. This because a standard go around calls for "Go around, thrust, Flaps20, positive climb, gear up" and a pull up to the Flight Director.
As it turns out on the T7, the TOGA switch might be inhibited, therefore you have to realise that and then definitely push the levers forward manually. The Flight Director will not show a relevant pitch up until the system goes back to flight mode and a second push on the TOGA switches can bring it back to life. When this actually happens is not clearly described in our books. Fact is, that the "normal go around" is somewhat disturbed by flight guidance. This is a very difficult manoeuvre at a critical point with little time to react and it is almost never trained.

The most impending threat is heavy contact with the ground which can very rapidly develop into a full blown crash, as demonstrated.
If it was due to wind shear, we should opt for the WS escape manoeuvre, which calls for AP/AT off, full thrust, wings level, pitch up to 15deg (or StSh) and no configuration change. The same applies if you deem the more threatening issue a disabling ground contact/crash and go for a "pull up" procedure with up to 20deg (or StSh).
These procedures are trained more often and are easier to apply, they work irrespective of the actual flight guidance modes.

Therefore my "suggestion". I can only guess, but with some experience in my backpack, i am pretty sure that avoiding a crash with heavy bounces might be more successful this way.

[ArchieBabe]

"#GCAA warns all residence in the #UAE to stop abusing social networks by publishing videos, news or pictures of aviation’s accidents"

When absolute power....corrupts absolutely.

[Jwscud]

My view is that if this was a balked landing, spool up time is the biggest likely issue. With the thrust in idle, and the notoriously long spool time on the RR engines, an attempt to rotate for the go around with thrust wandering up from idle would be "interesting".

Can anyone tell me at what point the EECs go from approach to intermediate or minimum idle as all my FCOM says is "after touchdown"? If the engines had gone to a lower idle the difficulty could be greatly exacerbated.

[Dashtrash]

I'm in agreement with others that the wx conditions, while difficult, were not outside the capabilities of the aircraft. A two engine go-around should not pose a problem.
I'm more wondering about other possibilities. What if the AP wasn't engaged? CX had an incident in the -400 a while back where a go around was initiated but the AP wasn't engaged. Is it possible it this case that TOGA was pressed, but no firm pitch up was made? Given the temperatures, is it also possible (borne out of sim tactics) that there is an unofficial emphasis on "get the gear up quick in the go-around)?
Fatigue, both acute and chronic would play a part. Seems to be an issue at EK.
Automation reliance would play a part. A modern issue for mos airlines.
Negative training would play a part.
I've not flown the 777 so this is just my theory. Thoughts?

[unworry]

"#GCAA warns all residence in the #UAE to stop abusing social networks by publishing videos, news or pictures of aviation’s accidents"

When absolute power....corrupts absolutely.

Well, to be fair: it's not a western democracy but a collection of sheikdoms.

The power dynamic is a little different...

:rolleyes:

[ManaAdaSystem]

Oh yes, it's different, but Emirates airlines is not a small, local operator. It's one of the biggest airlines in the world, and possible fatigued pilots behind the controls could cause accidents in major cities all over the world.