Emirates A388 - Moscow UUDD, GA from 400 feet AGL, 8nm out.

[sierra5913]

Maybe of interest to the wider aviation community;

Incident: Emirates A388 at Moscow on Sep 10th 2017, go around from about 400 feet AGL 8nm before runway (http://avherald.com/h?article=4ae84b8a&opt=0)

An Emirates Airbus A380-800, registration A6-EEZ performing flight EK-131 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Moscow Domodedovo (Russia), was positioning for an approach to Domodedovo's runway 14R about to intercept the extended runway center line about 8nm before the runway threshold when the aircraft descended to about 400 feet AGL, initiated a go around climbing straight ahead and crossing through the localizer to safe altitude. The aircraft subsequently positioned for another approach to runway 14R, aligned with the extended runway center line but did not initiate the final descent and joined the missed approach procedure as result. The aircraft positioned again for an approach to runway 14R and landed without further incident on runway 14R about 35 minutes after the first go around (from 400 feet AGL).

Position and Altitude data transmitted by the aircraft's transponder suggest the aircraft was tracking about 190 degrees magnetic when the aircraft initiated the go around at about 1000 feet MSL about 8nm before the runway threshold, which translates to about 400 feet AGL with the aerodrome elevation at 180 meters/592 feet MSL.

The airline told The Aviation Herald on Sep 18th 2017, that the occurrence is being investigated by United Arab Emirates' Civil Aviation Authority GCAA, the airline apologizes that due to the investigation no further details can be provided.

The GCAA have already sent a first preliminary reply indicating the communication department is about to respond to the questions.

Russia's Rosaviatsia (Civil Aviation Authority) have not yet replied to the inquiry by The Aviation Herald.

[J.O.]

I have no idea if it was a factor in this incident, but I look forward to the day when the standard of measurements in aviation is ... standardized.

[ATC Watcher]

Well it is standardized , it is the metric system . Problem is after having voted for it in 1945 at the ICAO foundation , the US subsequently refused to apply and since the vast majority of the aircraft flying after WWII were theirs and in feet/NM , it continued .
Every attempt to revisit the discussion /modify this one way or another failed... and is unlikely to change if you ask me. Same discussion for inches versus milibars/hectopascals...
In this particular case I do not think meters/feet was the problem , more likely QFE/QNH if you ask me , but I am speculating, I have no info.

[atakacs]

when the aircraft initiated the go around at about 1000 feet MSL about 8nm before the runway threshold
So I guess this was some type of autoland procedure ?

In such circumstances I would imagine some sort of information to the pilots about the reason for the go around ?

(yes, definitely not rated for anything bigger than SPE :O )

[DaveReidUK]

Avherald has a history of misinterpreting ADS-B data, so the "400 feet AGL" needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

No mention anywhere of the prevailing QNH, so no way of telling what adjustment the transponder data needs in order to produce an accurate height AMSL or AGL, or whether that was done by AH.

[RAT 5]

And the weather & time of day? I would hope they were IMC to find themselves in such a pickle. But then again, captains of A380's are not newbies. However, the magenta line brigade started in mid-80's. However, we've had the discussion about Westjet in St.Martin nearly imitating a submarine, but that was from an NPA. What kind of approach was this? I doubt it could have been ILS.

[gearlever]

and the weather & time of day? I would hope they were imc to find themselves in such a pickle. But then again, captains of a380's are not newbies. However, the magenta line brigade started in mid-80's. However, we've had the discussion about westjet in st.martin nearly imitating a submarine, but that was from an npa. What kind of approach was this? I doubt it could have been ils.

uudd 102030z 20003mps 170v230 9999 -shra sct050cb 14/12 q1015 r88/010095 nosig
uudd 102000z 20003mps 9999 -shra few046cb 14/11 q1015 r88/010095 nosig
uudd 101930z 21003mps cavok 14/11 q1015 r88/010095 nosig
uudd 101900z 21003mps 170v230 cavok 14/11 q1015 r88/010095 nosig
uudd 101830z 18003mps cavok 14/11 q1015 r88/010095 nosig
uudd 101800z 18004mps cavok 15/11 q1015 r88/010095 nosig
uudd 101730z 18004mps 9999 few040 15/12 q1015 r88/010095 nosig
uudd 101700z 19003mps 9999 few040 15/12 q1016 r88/010095 nosig
uudd 101630z 18003mps cavok 15/12 q1016 r88/010095 nosig
uudd 101600z 17003mps cavok 17/12 q1015 r88/010095 nosig
uudd 101530z 17003mps cavok 18/12 q1015 r88/010095 nosig
uudd 101500z 18003mps cavok 20/12 q1016 r88/010095 nosig

[recceguy]

That's absolutely fascinating.

The best of it is failing to do properly the second approach.

Anyway, at some moment they recovered their mind and managed to find the runway. Fortunately they had fuel for that.
With a little bit of commitment, they will be able to put the blame on the aircraft (Airbus) or the Russians - both being easy targets for some.

And talking about the Russians - after the "landing incident" of Rostov-na-Donu last year, maybe they will get fed up this time ?

[glofish]

But then again, captains of A380's are not newbies

Are you sure? Check the ME forum .......

[Discorde]

Well it is standardized , it is the metric system . Problem is after having voted for it in 1945 at the ICAO foundation , the US subsequently refused to apply and since the vast majority of the aircraft flying after WWII were theirs and in feet/NM , it continued .

From 'How Airliners Fly':

Curiously, for a technical industry, aviation has still not adopted standard units when quantifying parameters. Thus distances are measured in feet, metres, kilometres and nautical miles (and in some countries, statute miles). Speeds are in knots (nautical miles per hour) or metres per second (which is how some countries report wind speed). Masses are kilograms or pounds and air pressure hectopascals (millibars) or inches of mercury. The one exception to this pot-pourri of units is that temperature is universally recorded in degrees Celsius. Perhaps in the future aviation will switch to the exclusive adoption of metric measurement, which will obviate the need for personnel in the industry to make conversions – always a possible source of human error. Speeds would be kilometres per hour and vertical distance in metres. The current standard 1000 feet vertical separation between aircraft would change to the almost identical 300 metres.

The only amendments I would suggest are:

- retain altimeter scale in feet but refer to 'flight level' throughout (indication divided by 100)

- introduce GPS altimetry, so that setting errors are eliminated (with pressure altimeters as back-up)

[Enos]

Having read ASRs over the years with people capturing false glideslopes and getting overloaded and ending up low a long way from the runway, I always put the runway in the fix page and put a ten mile ring on it, aim to be at roughly 3000 feet above the runway at this point, it's a rough ball park check but it can save your ar$e when you're having a bad day.

Be warned if the runway changes it could screw you up.

I feel so sorry for these guys, every professional avaiator will F it up at some time, it's just how bad it is.

As an old instructor said to me years ago, you won't live long enough to make every mistake, learn from others.

[RoyHudd]

Russian QFE/Metric altitude system causes confusion, therefore risk. EK rosters cause fatigue, therefore risk.

Thank the Lord for EGPWS. Hard to screw that up, even locals.

[galaxy flyer]

Hasn't Russia gone over to QNH and feet for altitudes/levels? I don't see why more aircraft just don't have a switch that changes the altitude scales to metric, either. Most of the business jets and the new C-5 just have a selection.

[MarkerInbound]

Russia and the CIS are using feet for flight levels above transition but they still use meters below transition. Jeppessen approach plates show meters with a foot equivalent altitude. There are notes that they use QFE with QNH available but I've always just been given QNH settings.

[White Knight]

Hard to screw that up, even locals.

Wasn't 'locals' in this case.

Hasn't Russia gone over to QNH and feet for altitudes/levels?

As MarkerInbound says, only above TA/TL otherwise they use QFE and meters.

[galaxy flyer]

Using QFE and meters could have prevented this from happening. It's a perfectly usable altimetry, but dies require training.

400m QFE is probably the last height given upon intercept of LOC, that is A1900', wonder if that is a coincidence?

[White Knight]

It is indeed perfectly useable, but firstly we simply do not use QFE here at Emirates and secondly we've managed two flights into UUDD every day for the past 13 or 14 years doing the very simple conversion off the charts.

As a side note I don't find the Metric altitude on the Airbus to be accurate enough to use as a primary reference!

[galaxy flyer]

Fair enough, but having flown there a lot in business jets, we always used QFE in Russia or where QFE was the standard. Yes, as I noted, training is required. Agreed most Western airlines use QNH and don't have problems, but I'd submit, using QNH in a QFE environment is an error waiting to happen.

[Wizofoz]

There is a problem using QFE in aircraft equipped with EGPWS. It leads to un-warranted activations.

[White Knight]

using QNH in a QFE environment is an error waiting to happen.

It is. Trouble is the EK model is to brief, brief and brief again hence losing the salient and vital points for a particular airport/runway and 'bigging up' the unimportant stuff!

[Wizofoz]

WK,

EKs EGPWS is calibrated to AMSL- some guys tried to use QFE into DME years ago, with the result that they got a hard GPWS warning.

It's not just "bigging up", there are actual reasons for it.

[galaxy flyer]

Well, that's interesting, wizofoz. We never had that problem with EGPWS either in Honeywell or Collins equipped Global 6000 or Challengers. In fact, we had QRH procedures for using QFE. All designed with BBD, the avionics manufacturers and FAA.

One of my C-5 crews nearly CFIT'd in Bishkek. Had to convert millibars to inches, then QFE to QNH and then the altitude conversions. As Bishkek is at 2,000' ish, they couldn't crank down the baros low enough to indicate QFE. Now, the "glass" cockpit avionics can do that.

[Wizofoz]

I always thought it was a bit strange, galaxy, but it is never the less the case.

[White Knight]

WK,

EKs EGPWS is calibrated to AMSL- some guys tried to use QFE into DME years ago, with the result that they got a hard GPWS warning.

It's not just "bigging up", there are actual reasons for it.


I'm well aware of how EGPWS is calibrated but thanks for the 'lesson':}

Either I was typing gibberish or you don't understand my Queen's English; the 'bigging up' was regarding the unimportant bits which EK like us to spout about! The C-TWO F model is fine as long as we stick to the relevant and important stuff! Such as the need to convert QFE/meters to QNH/feet at UUDD and not discussing the need for something like ice-protection on a CAVOK summer's day!

Briefings need to be brief. Unlike the EK Longings!:rolleyes:

[poldek77]

I have not been flying to Russia for couple of years so I am not up-to-date about present situation. But some time ago I found this article:
http://flightservicebureau.org/big-change-russia-finally-moving-to-qnh/
Any progress?

[atakacs]

Sorry to ask but from the discussion above should we summize that the two go around were auto initiated due to some bogus EGPWS warning linked to some confusions about measurement units ?

[sleeper]

Never heard of "auto initiated" go-arounds. I am not familiar with airbus, but on Boeings there are no auto initiated go-arounds. It can be done on autopilit, but the initiation is done by the pilot.

[RAT 5]

Was this an ILS or NPA? I've had false glide slopes, but they've all been above the real one not below. Is that possible? It was CAVOK, but darkness, so they should have been visible with the runway. If the a/c descended to such low height too early was this a case of WTF is it doing now, and not reacting as we hope most would do, and disconnect and fly the damn thing into a safer place?

I see the primary approach is ILS. The chart has Altitude - M conversion tables, but DME linked in. The approach is 1977'agl at 8.5nm - 1647' at 6.5nm and descend from this at 5nm. So 400' at 8nm, if it was radar to ILS, is astonishing. Does Moscow radar ATC not have a 'low level alert' warning for arriving a/c? If this was a VOR approach does EK or AB SOP's not require a DMA v ALT check during an approach. Is this shades of the AC Halifax incident?
If this scenario is true is does seem scary that such a sophisticated a/c, in visual conditions could be at 400' all when it should have been about 1900'.
If it was at 1977' and the crew watched and wondered while it descended to 400' is curious. If at 700fpm that takes 2 minutes. That is along time to watch something you should not be happy with. A simple ALT v DME would have alerted you at the first check.
The comment that it failed to descend at the correct point on the 2nd approach is also worrying. Is this an SOP mess-up, a mis-understanding of how the system works, a system mess-up? What did they do differently on the 3rd approach?

[hikoushi]

You know, all the discussion of altimetry should really be set aside; it takes our eye off the "basic airmanship" ball...

If the aircraft went around from 1000 MSL, and that equated with 400 AGL, then whether they were on QFE, QNH, feet, or metric is a moot point. ANY of those altitudes / settings would still be WAY too low while descending 8 NM out from the threshold.

And the SECOND try was also unsuccessful.

I have absolutely no idea how the 380 flies, but on approach in the 330 if the VDEV says one thing but a basic mental 3 1/2 to 1 (3 and a half miles to every 1000 feet left to lose) is significantly different, it is very likely that the VDEV is wrong / misprogrammed. What was in these guys' FMS, and does Emirates give you a lobotomy when they put you thru Airbus school?

[gearlever]

Never heard of "auto initiated" go-arounds. I am not familiar with airbus, but on Boeings there are no auto initiated go-arounds. It can be done on autopilit, but the initiation is done by the pilot.

Same on the bus.

[atakacs]

Glad to read it - I guess that the redaction of the initial article is somewhat lacking...

[sonicbum]

As other have mentioned already, QFE / meters is manageable but represents a big threat indeed. Historically several airlines have had their own share of troubles with Russian altimetry system so it still amazes me that nothing is done to mitigate this very simple risk. How many Tupolev and Ilyushin are still flying around (especially in and out Moscow) compared to Boeing and Airbus "Qnh only" airplanes ?

[gearlever]

EK-131 on 12/09 also went around and EK-131 of 13/09 diverted to OSF/UUMO
:confused:

[Anvaldra]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFE7ULh69Bc&feature=youtu.be

[Anvaldra]

EK-131 of 13/09 diverted to OSF/UUMO
:confused:


It's a snark. Rather Moon surface than UUMO

[Propellerpilot]

Guys - it is really shocking what most of you are writing here - only excuse for it, is if you have not been back to Russia recently. :ugh::

As one poster already stated, Russia has changed the Rules and exclusively uses QNH altimetery below Transition Level and this has been in effect since Feb 2017. It is no longer a QFE environment.

Just have a look at your charts: No more conversion tables and need to work out meteres, as there are no longer clearances issued in meteres. Just set the given QNH after TL fly in feet and that's it.

[cowhorse]

I fly to UUEE every month - yes, the conversion tables are still part of the charts (Lido), the atc sometimes gives you QNH sometimes not, below TL they always give you height.

[sonicbum]

Hi,

good point but the transition started in Feb this year with ULLI and will slowly keep going till hopefully the whole area is QNH. Haven't flown there for a while now so I do not know what the story is (and do not have the charts right here to check). As the prev poster mentioned it appears that You still work on QFE.

[Dont worry]

Sonicbum is right.
ULLI is the only airport in Russia which uses QNH.
And yes. All the charts still have QFE and QNH values given.
It is a testing phase. All others work with QFE but more and more give you QNH if you ask them.
Even RNAV approaches are possible on a few airports if you ask for it.
I presume, flying and out of Russia about 20 times a month this was just a missinterpretation of the numbers on the charts.
Flying on QNH and reading the QFE values or vice versa.
The biggest problem is that you fly down to FL50 on QNH and then you have to transition to QFE. Close to ground, stress and "out of a sudden" a different altitude reading procedure/measurement.
Also the EGWPS does will not be triggered if you dont touch the altitude numbers in the FMS, like changing the airport elevation to 0 just your altimeter will show 0 upon landing. Plus, you need to set all other values in the FMS to QNH. Never use QFE in the FMS

[atakacs]

Ok I'm still a bit confused here.
Are we speaking of an EK 380 having two go arounds while landing in Moscow Domodedovo, presumably because the approach was botched due to crew error (incorrect altitude settings (ie QNH vs QHE)) ? Certainly doesn't reflect positively on said crew but is it such a huge deal ? Or am I missing something ?

[You rock]

what you don't think that being at a 8 mile final at 400 ft agl or lower isn't a huge deal ?

[You rock]

the title of the thread needs to be changed, egpws at 400 AGL instead of a simple go around, comprende

[WHBM]

Must have been just after sunset.

10nm from Domodedovo Rwy 14 would put them just over the outer edges of the well-lit Moscow suburbs. Reported as Cavok.

[g109]

Guys, if you look at it from another angle, would it be possible the crew intercepted and were flying down a ILS sidelobe with a false glide path, which would them shown an on glide indication right until impact.
At 400 agl they then penetrated the terrain clearance floor, and got the GPWS too low terrain.

[bcmpqn]

False or temporarily spoofed (possible?) GS?

[Airbubba]

From the FlightRadar24 .kml file of the EK 131 track the lowest point I see prior to the successful approach is:

2017-09-10 17:53:39 UTC

Altitude: 975 ft
Speed: 157 kt
Heading: 201°

Avherald has a history of misinterpreting ADS-B data, so the "400 feet AGL" needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

No mention anywhere of the prevailing QNH, so no way of telling what adjustment the transponder data needs in order to produce an accurate height AMSL or AGL, or whether that was done by AH.

uudd 101800z 18004mps cavok 15/11 q1015 r88/010095 nosig

975 feet minus field elevation of 593 gives 382 feet above the field at what I measure to be about 7 nm to the runway threshold. QNH is 1015 hPa so the correction is small (~50 feet?) and we don't know the local elevation where they were but it doesn't look like a valley to me.

So, 400 feet, 600 feet or 300 feet, it's nowhere an A380 should be on approach that far out. :eek:

On the first pass it appears that they never intercepted the centerline for 14R and continued on about a 190 heading for the go around. On the second approach they seemed to make a level pass at approach speed at a FR24 indicated altitude of 2550 feet after overshooting final slightly and then paralleling the extended runway centerline slightly to the left. The third approach appears normal with a dogleg intercept to final and an appropriate descent.

[gearlever]

GoAround of EK-131 on 12. and 13. of Sep as well.

[atakacs]

There muss indeed be more to the story

[parabellum]

If you are flying on QNH, set both sides, it doesn't hurt to put the standby altimeter on QFE? Way, way back I seem to remember we did this very occasionally on the B744, possibly Jo'burg..

[galaxy flyer]

We did the opposite on the Global-main altimeters in QFE, standby on QNH. Gave a cross check.

[787PIC]

The only thing I know about A380 is that it is butt ugly!
However, modern airliners that I am familiar with, like the 787,777, and 744 all have radio altimeters that depict absolute height above ground below 2500' AGL. Regardless of problems with setting QNH, QFE, QNE or other pressure measuring instrument.
The EGWPS on these aircraft, and I am sure on the A380, is an extremely complicated piece of technology designed to handle just about every screw up, including mine and yours.
The thing must have been going crazy when these folks ended up at less than 400' from the ground and nowhere near a landing runway! Especially in day VFR with good visibility.
I have no problem with going around, but perhaps airlines like Emirates should take a pause in their quest for conquering the globe and pay more attention to crew rest, training, experience, and overall safety!

[ibelieveicanfly]

Yes indeed you know nothing about the 380 and trust me it s a great plane to fly and yes it has the all the technology you need even a radio altimeter which starts at 2500 agl and if you read a bit more it was by night 1800 utc in Russia.Your last sentence make a bit more sense

[DaveReidUK]

we don't know the local elevation where they were but it doesn't look like a valley to me

Correct.

The 975' AMSL point (± the QNH correction, which we now know was negligible) occurred just as the track was approaching the Gorki Leninskiye ("Lenin Hills" - the clue's in the name), one of the highest points in the Greater Moscow area at approximately 720' AMSL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparrow_Hills

[ManaAdaSystem]

Situational awareness: Fail

[Anvaldra]

Correct.

The 975' AMSL point (± the QNH correction, which we now know was negligible) occurred just as the track was approaching the Gorki Leninskiye ("Lenin Hills" - the clue's in the name), one of the highest points in the Greater Moscow area at approximately 720' AMSL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparrow_Hills

according to "A6EEZ_eceac34" from FR24

1505066057, 2017-09-10T17:54:17Z, UAE131, "55.502243, 37.761009", 2150, 142, 208
1505066034, 2017-09-10T17:53:54Z, UAE131, "55.515976, 37.767918", 1550, 146, 176
1505066025, 2017-09-10T17:53:45Z, UAE131, "55.523365, 37.767906", 1125, 154, 188
1505066019, 2017-09-10T17:53:39Z, UAE131, "55.527603, 37.769794", 975, 157, 201
1505066012, 2017-09-10T17:53:32Z, UAE131, "55.532257, 37.773743", 1075, 156, 211
1505066005, 2017-09-10T17:53:25Z, UAE131, "55.536346, 37.77932", 1275, 157, 221
1505065999, 2017-09-10T17:53:19Z, UAE131, "55.539001, 37.783482", 1450, 157, 221
1505065992, 2017-09-10T17:53:12Z, UAE131, "55.542572, 37.789223", 1675, 155, 222

the lowest altitude 975 ft is hereabout with local elevation ~580 ft

It looks like farm field

[paulmoscow]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparrow_Hills
For the sake of correctness the link should be this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorki_Leninskiye

Lenin's hills and Sparrow hills are way too far from each other.

[DaveReidUK]

It looks like farm field

I said "approaching", not "overhead".

The dark area in the bottom left of your first GE screenshot, just below the pin in your second, is start of the wooded hill overlooking the Moscow river, which he would have directly overflown had he continued the left turn onto the runway heading.

[End_of_Descent]

the lowest altitude 975 ft is hereabout with local elevation ~580 ft


I agree with that. (elev 580').

As mentioned in another thread, for a flight tracking project I've learned how to position a camera point of view precisely in Google Maps/Earth.

Using the data above, this should simulate the approximate view from the cockpit at the lowest point in the approach (camera positioned at the respective coordinate, 120m AGL, heading 201°) (click on the link, needs a WebGL capable browser)
https://www.google.de/maps/@55.527603,37.769794,120a,35y,201h,89t/data=!3m1!1e3

[Anvaldra]

Dave, believe me - it's hardly to call it "hill". I drive there often. It's just a relief drop towards Pakhra river (not Moscow, but it matters little)

[Airbubba]

FlightAware has this point in its EK 131 dataset which seems to correlate with the FR24 data:

Sun 17:53:36 UTC
N55.5289 E37.7707
Course 204° Southwest
156 knots
1,000 feet
-200 v/s
Reporting Facility: FlightAware ADS-B (DME / UUDD)

Flight Track Log UAE131 10-Sep-2017 DXB / OMDB - DME / UUDD FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE131/history/20170910/1250Z/OMDB/UUDD/tracklog) (may require a login to view)

[Ricket]

It's simple. Cleared to 900 mts. Dial in 900'. Figure out you're not supposed to be there go around.

[cessnapete]

Forget all the fancy Airbus gadgets! Don't they teach EK pilots basic pilot stuff. 8 miles out x3 about 2400ft agl.

[pineteam]

They are taught to fly with AP all the time and raw data is forbidden... But for some people, that the way it should be...:ugh:

The other reality is that those guys fly like crazy and fatigue might definitely be a factor...

[atakacs]

GoAround of EK-131 on 12. and 13. of Sep as well.

Ok what do you guys make of this ? I can't imagine EK being that sloppy - there seems to be a pattern here !

[fox niner]

They are taught to fly with AP all the time and raw data is forbidden... But for some people, that the way it should be...

That is outrareous. In this neck of the woods, the regulator has decided in mutual agreement with the legacy carrier that I fly for, that a raw data approach is part of the type rating exam.
If you can't do it, you don't fly.

It's simple. Cleared to 900 mts. Dial in 900'. Figure out you're not supposed to be there go around.

Sounds very plausible. I'll put my money on that.

[ManaAdaSystem]

If you fly any commercial airliner and you think 900 ft is a normal initial approach altitude, you should find yourself another job.

[Centaurus]

that a raw data approach is part of the type rating exam.

So one raw data instrument approach during the type rating in a simulator and that makes you certified competent for the rest of your career? Surely you must be joking except I know you are not. And I bet the autothrottles were engaged. Let's be blunt about this. Airlines pay lip service only to this raw data stuff just to tick a box. A total waste of time.

[fox niner]

Ah come on centaurus, negative.
A/P off, Autothrottle off, F/D off, 500' overcast, intercept the ils manually in that configuration, and fly the bloody airplane neatly to land in the touchdown zone. That includes all configuration changes necessary.
It's a bloody shame that this is not part of every pilot's minimum requirement.
Look at yourself in the mirror and ask....

[RAT 5]

It's simple. Cleared to 900 mts. Dial in 900'. Figure out you're not supposed to be there go around.

It is said they descended to 400'-ish agl. Correct, they should not have been there, or anywhere near there at that point. But........ if AB's EGPWS is anything like the B738's first it would have woken up the Rad Alt at 2500'. Every airline I've worked for uses this as a situation awareness alert and has an SOP call for it. However, in my last airline, much to my chagrin, it was treated by F/O's in parrot fashion. Rad Alt says "2500" and the response is "OMG etc." They didn't make a cross check to the Baro to see if it made sense and was as expected. They'd made the SOP call and all was good. Duh.
Secondly, I'm assuming EK had flaps out at 8nm but not gear, so there could have been a "too low gear" EGPWS alert before then.
Do they have a VSP display?
They surely have a runway symbol on there MAP that would have been half way up the screen with range rings.
They surely had a DME & Glide slope displayed. The latter would have been alive at some point then off the scale PDQ as they descended.
i.e. there should have been many clues that all was not good with their world long before the reached 400'. AND they should have been VMC visual at night looking for the runway.

People talk about tiredness. Could have been accumulative, but the arrival was early evening not early morning; i.e. a day flight. And tiredness has to affect both pilots to be so lost in space.

Questions, not many answers; from the outside.

[Bergerie1]

fox niner,

We used to do that every six months in the simulator - manual flying (raw data, no autopilot, no autothrottle), ADF approach, engine out, 500 ft cloud base in a strong cross wind.

Very good exercise, but then that was when pterodatyls ruled the air!!

[Musician]

FlightAware has this point in its EK 131 dataset which seems to correlate with the FR24 data:
Sun 17:53:36 UTC
N55.5289 E37.7707
Course 204° Southwest
156 knots
1,000 feet
-200 v/s
Reporting Facility: FlightAware ADS-B (DME / UUDD)[URL removed]
That same dataset has the aircraft leveled out at 1000m from 17:51:13 to 17:51:33, at the end of the initial descent from FL380.

[kristofera]

If I may interject with a silly SLF question, would (hypothetically) GPS spoofing be a possible factor that could lead a crew to descend towards a non-existing runway?

There have reportedly been instances of ships finding themselves far inland based on GPS location, or moving at speeds beyond their capabilities.

Far-fetched, I know, but I would still be interested to know if it could play even a small role in an incident like this.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/black-sea-ship-hacking-russia

[Bergerie1]

kristofera,

It is not a silly question. All navigation aids must be regarded as aids not gospel. It is always necessary to maintain simple common sense checks like 10,000 feet per 30 Nms. (plus or minus a bit) and at 10Nms from touch-down you should be at or around 3000 feet. These gross error checks work and one needs to use ALL available sources.

And as RAT5 has pointed out, what is the Rad Alt for?

[Kobus Dune]

OK - so blame the Russians, and divert the attention from what is an obvious .... well, my command of English is not good enough to write it politely

[ChickenHouse]

Couldn't the discussion on QFE QNH TA TL be a bit off if this was a GPS guided approach? Any information on how they did the approach?

[Anvaldra]

It's strange to read about conversion inconvenience for skilled airmen. Just get everything ready for any flight wherever you fly

[RAT 5]

It's strange to read about conversion inconvenience for skilled airmen. Just get everything ready for any flight wherever you fly

This was a not a short flight. There was time to discuss TEM items and IMHO FL - feet - metres should have been included in that discussion. EK Flt Ops would know about this threat. Perhaps they have an airfield brief covering that topic? Was this the crews' first visit?

There was AC A320 at SFO. We don't know, but speculate, that TEM items were not considered before approach: in that case the closure of a // runway at night.

What is disturbing, in both cases, is that 2 pilots allowed a mistake to happen. A/C are designed with nearly every system having a back-up. One fails and the other takes over. There are 2 pilots for a similar reason, as well as others. PM is supposed to think independently and monitor what PF is doing. They will have discussed the operation phase by phase, agreed on a course of action, and then executed it. If PM sees things that don't seem sensible, or differ from the briefing in an unsafe way, they should speak up. If not then the back-up system doesn't work. Not ideal. I didn't think EK has cadets, so one can assume both plots are reasonably experienced. Who was PF? That could be significant. Are EK F/O's encouraged to speak up?
Either way, we are seeing quite a few events where the error can be seen as a CREW error; i.e. PF made a mistake and PM left them do it. Not good. And I don't mean some cowboy manually flown approach, but an A/P FMC or MCP manipulated profile where the sequence of events are very conspicuous and with plenty of time to see what has been selected and what is happening over a couple of minutes. There is no startle factor for PM.

[3Greens]

Guys - it is really shocking what most of you are writing here - only excuse for it, is if you have not been back to Russia recently. :ugh::

As one poster already stated, Russia has changed the Rules and exclusively uses QNH altimetery below Transition Level and this has been in effect since Feb 2017. It is no longer a QFE environment.

Just have a look at your charts: No more conversion tables and need to work out meteres, as there are no longer clearances issued in meteres. Just set the given QNH after TL fly in feet and that's it.

well thats funny, because on my DME yesterday they were using height/QFE below transition level.

[FLYDUS]

As far as I know the only airport in Russia using QNH and feet below TL is ULLI.

All the others are still using QFE and meters below Transition.

[pikalfa]

had instructions in meter and qfe by atc in UUDD two weeks ago when we approached

[White Knight]

Perhaps they have an airfield brief covering that topic?

There is.... and we've been using the conversion tables into UUDD for many years!

I didn't think EK has cadets

EK has cadets. Has done for years. But no cadet or ex cadet on this flight...

Are EK F/O's encouraged to speak up?

They most certainly are!

[Suffering_Pax]

From another forum I follow:

Heard about this a few days ago. they were about to join the localiser when they implemented a missed approach just under 1000ft ALT (i.e. above mean sea level, how "height" is measured in the majority of the world), the elevation (height above sea leavel) of Moscow DME is approx 550ft, i.e. they were <500ft (approx 165m) above the airfield, hills/buildings could easily make up the difference at 8nm out from the threshold.

Apparently both pilots were immediately grounded and not even permitted to operate back to DXB and are presumed to be fired shortly. They operated another failed approach, my source thinks they only then understood the problem, before a third successful approach.

The problem: Russia uses the metric system in aviation. While I, and most of the "rational" world are proponent of the metric system, the aviation world has always used nautical miles, knots and feet. I also think that this should stay this way and be the standard method used. Unfortunately two major aviation regions, Russia and China, choose to differ.

The problem with Russia, since an Airbus has a button to switch altitude to meters, is that ATC don't provide instructions with altitude in meters (again, altitude = height above SEA LEVEL - also known as QNH), ATC in Russia provide instructions in QFE - meters above AERODROME.

Part of the standard approach procedure at DME, when provided joining instructions to the localizer (a radio beam from the runway that indicates the extended centreline and is used by the aircraft in lateral navigation to line up with the runway) is to descend to 600 meters (!!!)

Now unfortunately the A380 doesn't have an automated system in place to implement this instruction, so pilots have conversion tables where they must look this up. Given the descent pattern of the subject aircraft it is plausible that the pilots simply input 600ft into their aircraft, when the correct reading would be 550ft+600m = approx 765m = approx 2200ft.

From what I've been told they only realised the issue and implement the missed approach when they received an alert from the GPWS (ground proximity warning system). The scary part: The radar altimeter which provides the height (height = distance to ground) callouts during final approach (1000 above, 500 above, 100 above etc) beings way above what they were at, so they would've heard 2 or 3 height callouts already, and their assigned altitude (if 600m QFE) would've been above even the first such callout.

Very scary stuff indeed, a 500 person A380 buried in the Moscow suburbs.

[Discorde]

Discontinue use of QFE (and demand Russia does likewise).

Discontinue use of pressure altimeters (and thereby eliminate setting errors) except as backup to GPS altimeters.

Discontinue references to feet and metres in altimetry in favour of 'flight levels' throughout.

So an airliner cruising at FL330 has 33,000 indicated on its altimeters (as at present). A pilot flying circuits in his Cub or Cessna 152 will report his flight level (not altitude) as (for example) 14 (or 014).

[Loose rivets]

As one who loved QFE, all I can say to that, is EEEEEEERRRRG!:uhoh:

(and demand Russia does likewise.).

Demand Russia does something? Can't quite see what's wrong with that plan but I know there's something.

Oh, and as one who called for QNH in Texas and was met with a silence never before heard on USofA airwaves, I know that we all need to be using the same terms as well as rulers.

As an oldie, I can't imagine going to metres for height but if the whole world made the change it would make a lot of sense. Though like driving on the right in the UK, I'd hate to be the one responsible for all the initial carnage.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Discontinue use of QFE (and demand Russia does likewise).

Discontinue use of pressure altimeters (and thereby eliminate setting errors) except as backup to GPS altimeters.

Discontinue references to feet and metres in altimetry in favour of 'flight levels' throughout.

So an airliner cruising at FL330 has 33,000 indicated on its altimeters (as at present). A pilot flying circuits in his Cub or Cessna 152 will report his flight level (not altitude) as (for example) 14 (or 014).

Except the difference between QNH and STD could be huge. Your Cessna could be flying at 200 ft above ground in your scenario.

[caiozink]

Never heard of "auto initiated" go-arounds. I am not familiar with airbus, but on Boeings there are no auto initiated go-arounds. It can be done on autopilit, but the initiation is done by the pilot.

Airbus normal airplanes, flown by pilots too ! Go arounds are initiated by them....no such thing as auto go around !

[galaxy flyer]

Again, operating on QNH in an QFE environment is an error waiting to happen, especially when you are fatigued, hard to understand ATC, don't frequent a location often, etc.

[Old King Coal]

I've operated for years in & out of Russia and it's always been Flight Levels given in Metres, and altitudes (actually, heights) referenced to QFE and also given in Metres.

The navigation charts carried onboard typically contain altitude / height conversion tables i.e. to quickly allow one to ascertain the conversion between metric and imperial.
Also, on Lido approach charts (which is what EK & FZ use) they provide the arithmetic correction (i.e. how many Mb's are needed) to convert the QFE (provided by Russian ATC) into QNH for that specific airport (and which is what you set on your Altimeter, i.e. QNH).

Inside your aeroplane you're flying the whole thing as normal, i.e. with reference to QNH and feet.

I myself would make this a risk assessment / risk reduction 'briefing item' and make sure that we both fully understand how to use the conversion tables.

Using the chart below as an example, it would (or should) go something like this:

ATC: "EK388 you're cleared descend 900m QFE"

Have already worked out the relevant QNH (from the ATC provided QFE) and set it on your altimeter, you would then refer to the conversion table for this airport, find out where it says 900m QFE and look across to the left side of the table to find the equivalent number of feet QNH... in this instance that'd be 3580'... and that's what you then set (or as close as you can get to it) in the MCP Altitude Window... you both check & confirm it... and away you go (and, if there's doubt, you confirm the clearance with ATC before you do it).

It's not exactly f'ing rocket science and only gets slightly more burdensome when it's seriously cold (what with 'cold temperature corrections', albeit - in a radar environment - ATC are supposed to take care of that aspect for you).

The following chart shows the sort of conversion table that is commonly used.

http://code7700.com/images/altimetry_chart_differences_metric_qfe.png

[Discorde]

Except the difference between QNH and STD could be huge. Your Cessna could be flying at 200 ft above ground in your scenario.

All primary altimetry would be based on GPS. As back-up pressure altimeters would be set to local QNH (or 'altimeter' in the US). Light aircraft (the Cub or C152) would use local QNH if not equipped with GPS altimeters. 'Standard' setting (1013 hpa) would disappear, along with Transition Altitudes (which are another potential source of setting errors).

ICAO resolution 23/2020: 'No non-Russian registered aircraft will operate within Russian airspace unless their crews are permitted to use absolute altimetry (derived from GPS signals or local sea level air pressure) at all levels. Altimeter scales will be graduated in Imperial feet but indications (divided by a factor of 100) will be referred to as 'flight levels' at all levels.'

[Airbubba]

I've operated for years in & out of Russia and it's always been Flight Levels given in Metres, and altitudes (actually, heights) referenced to QFE and also given in Metres.

And in RVSM airspace, Russia uses flight levels in feet. Job security for the training and safety departments. :ugh:

[Propellerpilot]

Just a few thoughts:

As the chart says, you can request QNH then use the table on the chart to convert the cleared metric level into feet. For some companies this is SOP in Russia.

GPS Altitude is not a reliable source and prone to DOP and Errors.

Another factor could be, that Russia is not WGS84 compliant as they use a different Geoid for their GLONASS System.

[Old King Coal]

Airbubba: And in RVSM airspace, Russia uses flight levels in feet... very true, and thanks for reminding me (been a long day).

[atakacs]

Airbus normal airplanes, flown by pilots too ! Go arounds are initiated by them....no such thing as auto go around !

I'm actually quite happy to read that (although the initial wording was somehow implying differently) but out of curiosity what happens if the autoland detects some abnormally? Just an ECAM message and revert to manual flight?

[Anvaldra]

Just a few thoughts:

Another factor could be, that Russia is not WGS84 compliant as they use a different Geoid for their GLONASS System.

AIP, Gen 2.1.3

[maggot]

I'm actually quite happy to read that (although the initial wording was somehow implying differently) but out of curiosity what happens if the autoland detects some abnormally? Just an ECAM message and revert to manual flight?
Triple click and af downgrade or autoland warning light/disconnect warning if it goes that far amongst other things

[maggot]

No it ain't rocket science but it is an extra two steps to a critical clearance (descent vector) to normal to be done a bunch of times on the arrival. Fair enough, happens all day every day but it is most certainly 2 big holes in the cheese waiting to add up to another distraction/busy environment/crew fatigue etc

[Capn Bloggs]

Couldn't agree more. Reams and reams of conservative rules and regulations in other areas and this is allowed in this day and age. Crazy, in my opinion.

[megan]

presumed to be fired shortlyGuaranteed to fix every problem. :sad: And reason I'll no longer fly a ME airline.

https://livingsafelywithhumanerror.com/2016/12/08/when-the-error-comes-from-an-expert-the-limits-of-expertise/

https://livingsafelywithhumanerror.com/2016/04/07/the-organizational-influences-behind-the-aviation-accidents/

Reminded of a story about a junior exec who cost the company some heaps of money on a contract through some ill thought out decision. A toady sucking up to the boss remarked, "well, that's him for the sack". Boss replied, "what? after all the money I just spent on his education?".

[FlightDetent]

a bunch of times on the arrival Exactly twice for each approach. And LIDO has a smarter design of the table, only two columns. Covered during the FMS preparation and ARR briefing no less than three times. Whatever happened, the metric conversion was not a reason, at worst just a catalyst if of any role at all.

[ATC Watcher]

GPS altitude : will not work below 3000 ft because the earth is not a perfect circle . Your C152 will find itself 1000ft below the ground in some places..
As said before WGS84 is an North American reference point made artificially to ensure positive altitude above its continent . Will not work in other parts of the world.

QFE. meters and Russians : This is not the cause of this incident . Tens of thousands of western aircraft fly every year since decades in this mixed environment without problems. I would say lack of proper training is . This is the common denominator of many incidents / accidents we see today. Add fatigue to that , plus fast airline expansion introducing new routes/ airports ,and not visiting them often and there you go.
Fixing the training issue would also far easier than changing Units of measurement on a global scale..:rolleyes:

[India Four Two]

As said before WGS84 is an North American reference point made artificially to ensure positive altitude above its continent . Will not work in other parts of the world.

Nonsense! There is a reason why it is called the World Geodetic System.

[White Knight]

QFE. meters and Russians : This is not the cause of this incident

In this case I suspect it actually could well be the cause!

I would say lack of proper training is

If you're not working at EK then that's something you wouldn't really know about... The procedures are very well documented and if briefed and followed don't actually require a lot of 'training' as such. The procedures aren't that difficult; however I will agree that Add fatigue to that FATIGUE is also part of the cause!

fast airline expansion introducing new routes/ airports

Daily or double daily flights to UUDD for about 13/14 years from OMDB means most of the guys/gals (at least the left seaters) have been many times over the years...

The issue I submit to you ATC Watcher is not having the time to recharge the batteries between trips... ULR over the pole to LAX one day and a few days later doing a DXB/BKK/SYD trip for example!

[ATC Watcher]

India 4 2 : Nonsense! There is a reason why it is called the World Geodetic System.
Don't be fool by the name , marketing , it is a US DoD baby, developed by them for their GPS , derived from WGS60, itself from an earlier one started when they launched satellites in the 50's . WGS84 still uses their old North American reference of 85W centered in middle of USA.

White Knight : I am not talking about EK in particular, just looking at incident/accident reports . The recent TK A330 in KTM, or the SFO 777 are good examples to start with.

I think you perhaps mix up causes and contributing factors. For instance fog or Cb are not causes . Like QNH/QFE or m/feet conversion. Contributing factors maybe ( as we do not yet know yet what happened here , just Internet speculation ) but not causes. That was my point.

[SOPS]

WK and his reference to fatigue, speaks very true words.

[underfire]

GPS altitude : will not work below 3000 ft because the earth is not a perfect circle . Your C152 will find itself 1000ft below the ground in some places..
As said before WGS84 is an North American reference point made artificially to ensure positive altitude above its continent . Will not work in other parts of the world.

Wow, really. It is not a reference point, WGS84 appoximates the Earths Ellipsoid. It has been adopted by ICAO as the worldwide standard for aviation.

The grid is based on UTM, with 60 zones. Each gridline is its own unique reference line, and is ultimately accurate.
Zone 1 and 60, moving from West to East, and letters from South to North., and does not relate to the Prime Meridian, nor 85W.

Max difference between geoid and ellipsoid is 105m. IF you have a GPS on the aircraft, or wherever, the system calcs the difference between the Geiod (MSL) and the Ellipsoid (GPS alt) by means of the lat/long and corrects, so you dont have to.
It does not give you AGL, it gives you altitude based on MSL.

[Discorde]

Back-up (pressure) altimeters would have local sea level air pressure value sent to them automatically by data link (with a readout of this figure available for cross-checking against forecast values). In commercial aircraft a discrepancy between the GPS and pressure altimeter indications exceeding pre-determined limits would generate a crew alert. Development of this sort of kit is within the bounds of current technology.

The Cub pilot would be responsible for manually setting LSLAP on his or her old tech altimeter.

[aterpster]

As Underfire stated, WGS84 is a worldwide system adopted by ICAO around 1989.

In the early days of RNAV, but later than 1989, many countries were not WGS84 compliant. More and more complied as the years passed. Several years ago if I would select an airway or terminal procedure in a country that was not WGS84 compliant, I would get an advisory message "X Country not WGS84 Compliant."

I believe most countries are WGS84 compliant in 2017. I tested Russia at UUDD with a current database. UUDD has several RNAV approaches. I did not receive a WGS84 noncompliance advisory alert for a UUDD RNAV IAP that I selected.

As to China, Hong Kong has RNP AR procedures. So, at least that portion of China is WGS84 compliant. So is Tibet as it has a very sophisticated RNP AR approach procedure developed some years ago for China Airlines by Naverous.

I selected ZUCK in China that has some ILS procedures with RNAV transitions and some without. I wasn't able to select the RNAV/ILS procedures. I'm not sure what that means.

[Bergerie1]

I can confirm that 'underfire' and 'aterpster' are right. Many years ago I was involved in updating an airline's charting and in work on GPS and Galileo compatibility.

[ATC Watcher]

Then I stand corrected.

I was in an ICAO meeting in the early 1990's where all this was explained, the earth being a " potatoid" (I remember that term !) therefore every major State used a different reference point/system fitting their Country or continent surface. Since GPS was going to be used worldwide , the USA GPS standard was chosen to the the ICAO standard for their GNSS. ( The then USSR fiercely opposed this , but since they dissolved around that time , they lost the argument )
To be fair in those days we were looking at 2D ( Lat/long positions maps, etc..) , not altitude at all.

[Bergerie1]

ATC WATCHER,

It was an interesting time when WGS 84 was being introduced and we found that all the individual country's surveys did not quite connect - sometimes by a few metres and sometimes by many miles!

[admiral ackbar]

The confusion probably stems from the fact that, for all intents and purposes, WGS84 and NAD83 (North American Datum 1983) are virtually the same over North America and evolve together. That is why the US did not care if it was WGS84.

Now lets start talking vertical datum, ellipsoids and geoids, h and H, that is hours of fun!

[India Four Two]

aa,

A man after my own heart! Hours of fun indeed, trying to explain the difference between h and H to people who have never heard the term ‘geoid’ and who think lat/long values can never change.

underfire,

A small clarification. Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) is a widely-used and very useful map projection, but it has nothing to do with the definition of WGS84.

Confusion can arise because the projection formulae use the parameters of a spheroid to convert lat/longs to eastings/northings. The spheroid used is usually the same spheroid that is specified in the geodetic datum that was used to calculate the lat/longs, but it doesn’t have to be.

As a consequence, a properly labeled map will have not only the geodetic datum parameters, but also the parameters used for the projection, including the spheroid.

Rather than expand at length, I offer the following Wiki links, for further reading:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Datum

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Transverse_Mercator_coordinate_system

On a final note, the US DOD were the initiators of the work that led finally to WGS84 and they did this because they needed a world-wide, earth-centred datum, to help in targeting ICBMs.

[galaxy flyer]

Crazy enough, when the Collins FMS-800 was installed in the C-5, we could select the datum to be used with WGS-84 as the default. If wanted the Argentine 1926, if was there and everything shifted. Not sure who thought that up.

[megan]

It was an interesting time when WGS 84 was being introduced and we found that all the individual country's surveys did not quite connect - sometimes by a few metres and sometimes by many milesWas involved in hydrographic survey in '73 and sections had not been surveyed since the time of discovery by Captain Cook in 1770. What surprised was generally how accurate he was given the technology of the time. Also spent time chasing errors in the national data base. Know nothing of the subject, I was just the means of transport and dogsbody carrying equipment.

[aterpster]

On a final note, the US DOD were the initiators of the work that led finally to WGS84 and they did this because they needed a world-wide, earth-centred datum, to help in targeting ICBMs.

Bingo!

Then remember selective availability, which Bill Clinton finally turned off.

[Discorde]

It's likely as you read this that there are several aircraft around the world flying with mis-set or mis-read altimeters. Some pilots will have omitted to change from QNH to standard when climbing through transition, others the opposite during descent. Some will be reading altitude on QFE and others height on QNH, which may result in level busts or airspace violations. Some will have incorrectly converted feet to metres or vice versa.

In Europe the problem is compounded by low Transition Altitudes. Every time a deep low pressure weather system crosses the UK a Notam has to be issued to remind pilots to be vigilant in setting standard when climbing through TA to avoid traffic conflicts. Of course, in such weather turbulence and wind shear are more likely to be encountered, distracting crews from essential tasks (such as resetting altimeters) at this critical time.

The consequences of altimeter mis-sets or mis-reads will usually be limited to red faces when the error is discovered. But now and again . . .

[Airbubba]

In Europe the problem is compounded by low Transition Altitudes.

Yep, I agree, the wheel has been invented in most other parts of the world. :ugh:

Why put the transition altitude/level down low where things are busy and traffic is most congested? :confused:

Fortunately QFE, like ADF holding, is almost extinct at large international airports in my experience. :ok:

[underfire]

As to China, Hong Kong has RNP AR procedures. So, at least that portion of China is WGS84 compliant. So is Tibet as it has a very sophisticated RNP AR approach procedure developed some years ago for China Airlines by Naverous.

Yes, I can confirm that the procedures for China use WGS84. The terrain model is WGS84 and based on SRTM data. Getting a survey on local terrain/vegetation, controlling obstacles, and the airport data was all created from scratch.

Yes India24, the UTM was comment rushed, I was thinking about the current project I am working on where the land based mapping is UTM.
WGS 84 is based on the prime meridian. A straight path across the surface is one thing to calculate, but a curve path on the surface is quite the other...the regulatory agencies were using the Helmert Formula, but that is not accurate enough for curves, so we use Vincenty's Formula which is far better.

In the end, the aircraft system understands WGS 84...

From Jeppeson. WGS84 Compliance worldwide...

https://i.imgur.com/GpE3qhw.jpg

http://ww1.jeppesen.com/company/publications/wgs-84.jsp

[Phantom Driver]

From WK--

The issue I submit to you ATC Watcher is not having the time to recharge the batteries between trips... ULR over the pole to LAX one day and a few days later doing a DXB/BKK/SYD trip for example!Here's a chap who manages to sort the wheat from the chaff in PP discourses these days . Metric/feet conversions , while an inconvenience, should never be an issue for a competent (i.e well disciplined , well trained crew ) and I am sure this is the case with pretty well all major operators these days, including those supposedly in "The Third World".

However, the point about time zone change and subsequent effects is the one that strikes me . I have always wondered why it was not possible for a roster to avoid this mix of Far West , followed by Far East . I always felt it should be a case of one or the other, with a North/South rotation filling in the rest of the month , (although in this case a Moscow trip would be following that philosophy ) . But then, bidding software perhaps makes that wish "mission impossible" . I don't know , but I do have a lot of sympathy for the rostering departments ; an unenviable job , as you could never satisfy everybody. , especially with the top floor guys coming in at short notice to make their own requests for favorite destinations ( usually combined with favorite seasonal weather---westbound in summer, eastbound in winter,---" no typhoons approaching; no Cat 3 approaches, please...).

In a previous gentlemanly life, (744 cargo) , we had a great route structure; set off eastbound and arrived back at base 2 weeks later, having traveled round the world in one direction (with multi day layovers), followed by a week off to "recover". 60 hours a month, if you were lucky.

Sadly, it seems those days are long gone.....

[cessnapete]

Rather long missive published to all Pilots by EK Training Management. Reference all the recent accidents incidents etc. Shake up in training and including introducing regular unannounced spot checks on route sectors by Route Check Capts.

[Centaurus]

Someone placed that missive on this forum soon after the incident but it vanished real quick.:sad:

[wiedehopf]

didn't vanish just on the Middle East subforum.

[b1lanc]

This one on Dec 4th - EK207. Pretty flat there but still...

[Airbubba]

Here's the Av Herald's report on the JFK incident:

Incident: Emirates A388 at New York on Dec 4th 2017, at about 200 feet in the middle of turn to runway 13L (http://avherald.com/h?article=4b21e320&opt=4097)

[DaveReidUK]

Here's the Av Herald's report on the JFK incident:

Incident: Emirates A388 at New York on Dec 4th 2017, at about 200 feet in the middle of turn to runway 13L (http://avherald.com/h?article=4b21e320&opt=4097)

It's pretty clear from external sources that, despite Avherald's sensational headline, EK207 was nowhere near that close to the ground (probably around 350' AMSL).

Though that's still way too low. :O

[Jack330]

It’s pretty clear that you don’t have a clue about what happened ! This was a serious incident with gpws included and it’s the second event in less than a year, same aircraft type, same company, same good weather, zero skills, zero airmanship and situational awareness...
The most funny thing is the desperate attempt to blame atc and external factors, serioysly ?

[DaveReidUK]

It’s pretty clear that you don’t have a clue about what happened ! This was a serious incident with gpws included and it’s the second event in less than a year, same aircraft type, same company, same good weather, zero skills, zero airmanship and situational awareness...
The most funny thing is the desperate attempt to blame atc and external factors, serioysly ?

I don't recall making excuses for anyone - what's your point ?

[SOPS]

JUst a question, what is the minimum for the approach?

[Airbubba]

JUst a question, what is the minimum for the approach?

800 feet MDA on the VOR 13L at JFK if that's what you are asking. They were visual and well past the MAP of DMYHL when the tower told them that they were extremely low.

[ironbutt57]

sounds like folks are drop-dead tired

[SOPS]

sounds like folks are drop-dead tired

TCAS started the experiment....lets see how far we can push them until they fall over.

It seems they have the answer now..it includes a burning 777 on the end of a runway, and nearly parking a couple go A380s in a few random suburbs around the world.

Trouble is...those that asked the question are not listening to the answer.

[wiggy]

800 feet MDA on the VOR 13L at JFK if that's what you are asking. They were visual and well past the MAP of DMYHL .

Yup, that point of course being the start of the turn....for those not familiar with it the approach there is a requirement to have the lead in lights in sight... One trap I’ve seen one or two almost fall into is not noticing that you need a slightly flatter than the normal 3degree approach from DMYHL to 13L and it can be difficult to pick up the 13L threshold/VGSI in amongst the general lighting clutter.....so it you hit DMHYL and start hustling down at Whatever gives you 3 degrees FPA you can start heading into interesting territory....

That said this approach looks like a heck of a outlier..be interesting to find out the human factors... if we ever do...

[Craggenmore]

It’s built around a 2.8 degree slope.....

[Monarch Man]

It’s built around a 2.8 degree slope.....

Craggy the Vasi is based on 2.8 for 13L but the actual angle assuming you cross DMYHL at 1000’ is more like 2.5 and is the reason why those unfamiliar on the bus using FPA screw it up as they go straight to 2.8 without ever considering the extra distance flown due to the turn.
Much easier on the Boeing..click off the AP and 500fpm till the Vasis look good then 6-700fpm at 145kts GS :cool:

[oliver2002]

Rumours say the A380 training team has been fired because of the New York incident?

[fatbus]

Oliver - wrong info !

[gearlever]

Rumours say the A380 training team has been fired because of the New York incident?

That would mean a 100% face loss.

So this will simply not happen.

[misd-agin]

TCAS viewing of 13L arrivals, while facing NW on P, are the interesting?
338’ inside of DMYHL instead of being at 700’, wouldn’t be the worst approach observed.