EK407 - Tailstrike YMML 20 March
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Under a bar somewhere
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Released same time as the video in previous post.
Well done to the crew for saving a horible situation no matter how it started in the first place. I have been through the ATSB website and can't find any reference to this incident. Does anyone know where the "investigation update" came from?
225 Lucky To Be Alive
THE Emirates jet that dragged its tail along Melbourne Airport last month was centimetres from crashing, with 225 passengers on board.
Several aviation sources have described the accident on March 20 as the closest thing to a major aviation disaster Australia has ever experienced and say the passengers and crew are lucky to be alive.
"It was as close as we have ever come to a major aviation catastrophe in Australia," one senior official said.
The plane -- carrying up to 215,000 litres of highly flammable aviation fuel -- was less than 70cm off the ground when it crashed through lights almost 200m from the end of the runway.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has placed it in the most serious category of aircraft mishap available to it -- an accident, rather than an incident.
An ATSB investigation update shows the accident was labelled a "significant event" by investigators, who also listed damage to the aircraft as "substantial".
"During the take-off the aircraft's tail scraped the runway surface. Subsequently smoke was observed in the cabin," the report says.
A Sunday Herald Sun investigation has confirmed that the flight -- EK407 to Dubai -- almost failed to become airborne and barely made it over the airport perimeter fence, half a kilometre away.
Damage to the $220 million plane is so severe that the airline is considering writing it off rather than repairing it.
The fully-laden Airbus A340-500 was believed to have been travelling about 280km/h when it reached the end of the runway without becoming airborne.
At the last minute, the two pilots "rotated" the plane -- or pulled its nose up into a steep ascent -- causing its tail to crash into the end of the runway.
Despite its steep climb, the plane was still so low that it wiped out strobe lights that were only 70cm high and positioned 170m from the end of the runway.
It then took out an antenna, believed to be near a small building, before barely making it over the 2.44m wire perimeter fence.
THE French-built aircraft remains in the John Holland aircraft hangar at Melbourne Airport, a temporary patch placed across the damage under its tail.
Passenger Roman Korobitson, who was heading to Moscow via Dubai, said the plane took too long to get off the ground.
"I would imagine we were pretty close to the end of the line when it took off," he said.
His wife, Irina, saw several passengers become "extremely frightened" by noise and smoke.
The Sunday Herald Sun investigation can reveal:
THE plane used all of the 3657m-long runway 16, but failed to become airborne in time to take off.
THE pilots pulled the aircraft up steeply at the end of the runway, a manoeuvre known as "rotating", causing the tail to drag along the ground.
THE pilots -- who are not Australians -- were interviewed by investigators the day after the crash, but have now left Australia and have resigned from Emirates.
THE possibility that an error was made while inputting data to the plane's computers has been
identified by investigators as a line of inquiry.
INVESTIGATORS are also examining whether the plane took off at full thrust, or whether reduced thrust, which can reduce wear on the aircraft and cut noise, was being used.
A spokeswoman for Emirates said: "Emirates cannot comment on the investigation as it is still underway.
"However, we can confirm that the aircraft involved in the incident remains at Melbourne Airport and has been moved to a new location within the airport to assist in these continuing investigations."
Airbus A340-500s are designed for long-haul flights and to withstand heavy cargo, fuel and passenger loads. They also have reinforcement to protect against the possibility of a tail-strike, which are extremely rare in Australia.
However the force on the accident on March 20 is understood to have damaged the tail-strike protection and caused significant structural damage to the aircraft.
THE Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it expected to release its preliminary report by the end of April. A spokesman for the ATSB said all crew, including the two pilots, had been interviewed in Melbourne the day after the accident.
The ATSB is understood to have seized data relating to the accident, including the "black box" flight recorder and video of the accident shot on cameras that monitor Melbourne Airport's runways. Runway 16 is a north-south runway and EK407 was taking off to the south, towards the suburb of Keilor, about 10.30pm, when the accident happened.
The pilots were able to climb out over Port Phillip Bay, where they circled to dump fuel. They made an emergency landing at Melbourne Airport about 11.15pm and passengers reported smoke in the cabin.
'WE WERE all terrified and the crew were terrified, but no one would tell us what had happened," one British tourist said.
Aviation officials said the pilots were not required to pass Australian pilot training standards. However, they are required to reach international standards and Emirates' pilot training and competency standards are almost identical to those in Australia, safety officials said.
Aside from damaging three strobe lights, EK407 also took out a navigation antenna owned and operated by air traffic controllers Airservices Australia. The antenna is thought to be about 180cm high and is positioned 350m from the end of runway 16.
Aviation expert Dick Smith said something had gone badly wrong.
"It's the closest thing to a major aviation accident in Australia for years," he said.
"The people (passengers) are incredibly lucky, it was an overrun where the plane didn't get airborne."
Mr Smith said Emirates was a "very good airline" and it was strange the pilots had resigned immediately after the accident.
"Emirates' standards are very high and they have a lot of Australian pilots," he said. "What I'm startled by is that there hasn't been a more immediate announcement. We should get some urgent advice from the ATSB. This is one of the most serious accidents you can imagine."
A Melbourne Airport spokeswoman confirmed the size of the strobe lights, which are on a grassed area between the end of the runway and the perimeter fence, which runs alongside Operations Rd.
"The height of the runway strobe lights is 0.7m above ground level," she said.
THE Emirates jet that dragged its tail along Melbourne Airport last month was centimetres from crashing, with 225 passengers on board.
Several aviation sources have described the accident on March 20 as the closest thing to a major aviation disaster Australia has ever experienced and say the passengers and crew are lucky to be alive.
"It was as close as we have ever come to a major aviation catastrophe in Australia," one senior official said.
The plane -- carrying up to 215,000 litres of highly flammable aviation fuel -- was less than 70cm off the ground when it crashed through lights almost 200m from the end of the runway.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has placed it in the most serious category of aircraft mishap available to it -- an accident, rather than an incident.
An ATSB investigation update shows the accident was labelled a "significant event" by investigators, who also listed damage to the aircraft as "substantial".
"During the take-off the aircraft's tail scraped the runway surface. Subsequently smoke was observed in the cabin," the report says.
A Sunday Herald Sun investigation has confirmed that the flight -- EK407 to Dubai -- almost failed to become airborne and barely made it over the airport perimeter fence, half a kilometre away.
Damage to the $220 million plane is so severe that the airline is considering writing it off rather than repairing it.
The fully-laden Airbus A340-500 was believed to have been travelling about 280km/h when it reached the end of the runway without becoming airborne.
At the last minute, the two pilots "rotated" the plane -- or pulled its nose up into a steep ascent -- causing its tail to crash into the end of the runway.
Despite its steep climb, the plane was still so low that it wiped out strobe lights that were only 70cm high and positioned 170m from the end of the runway.
It then took out an antenna, believed to be near a small building, before barely making it over the 2.44m wire perimeter fence.
THE French-built aircraft remains in the John Holland aircraft hangar at Melbourne Airport, a temporary patch placed across the damage under its tail.
Passenger Roman Korobitson, who was heading to Moscow via Dubai, said the plane took too long to get off the ground.
"I would imagine we were pretty close to the end of the line when it took off," he said.
His wife, Irina, saw several passengers become "extremely frightened" by noise and smoke.
The Sunday Herald Sun investigation can reveal:
THE plane used all of the 3657m-long runway 16, but failed to become airborne in time to take off.
THE pilots pulled the aircraft up steeply at the end of the runway, a manoeuvre known as "rotating", causing the tail to drag along the ground.
THE pilots -- who are not Australians -- were interviewed by investigators the day after the crash, but have now left Australia and have resigned from Emirates.
THE possibility that an error was made while inputting data to the plane's computers has been
identified by investigators as a line of inquiry.
INVESTIGATORS are also examining whether the plane took off at full thrust, or whether reduced thrust, which can reduce wear on the aircraft and cut noise, was being used.
A spokeswoman for Emirates said: "Emirates cannot comment on the investigation as it is still underway.
"However, we can confirm that the aircraft involved in the incident remains at Melbourne Airport and has been moved to a new location within the airport to assist in these continuing investigations."
Airbus A340-500s are designed for long-haul flights and to withstand heavy cargo, fuel and passenger loads. They also have reinforcement to protect against the possibility of a tail-strike, which are extremely rare in Australia.
However the force on the accident on March 20 is understood to have damaged the tail-strike protection and caused significant structural damage to the aircraft.
THE Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it expected to release its preliminary report by the end of April. A spokesman for the ATSB said all crew, including the two pilots, had been interviewed in Melbourne the day after the accident.
The ATSB is understood to have seized data relating to the accident, including the "black box" flight recorder and video of the accident shot on cameras that monitor Melbourne Airport's runways. Runway 16 is a north-south runway and EK407 was taking off to the south, towards the suburb of Keilor, about 10.30pm, when the accident happened.
The pilots were able to climb out over Port Phillip Bay, where they circled to dump fuel. They made an emergency landing at Melbourne Airport about 11.15pm and passengers reported smoke in the cabin.
'WE WERE all terrified and the crew were terrified, but no one would tell us what had happened," one British tourist said.
Aviation officials said the pilots were not required to pass Australian pilot training standards. However, they are required to reach international standards and Emirates' pilot training and competency standards are almost identical to those in Australia, safety officials said.
Aside from damaging three strobe lights, EK407 also took out a navigation antenna owned and operated by air traffic controllers Airservices Australia. The antenna is thought to be about 180cm high and is positioned 350m from the end of runway 16.
Aviation expert Dick Smith said something had gone badly wrong.
"It's the closest thing to a major aviation accident in Australia for years," he said.
"The people (passengers) are incredibly lucky, it was an overrun where the plane didn't get airborne."
Mr Smith said Emirates was a "very good airline" and it was strange the pilots had resigned immediately after the accident.
"Emirates' standards are very high and they have a lot of Australian pilots," he said. "What I'm startled by is that there hasn't been a more immediate announcement. We should get some urgent advice from the ATSB. This is one of the most serious accidents you can imagine."
A Melbourne Airport spokeswoman confirmed the size of the strobe lights, which are on a grassed area between the end of the runway and the perimeter fence, which runs alongside Operations Rd.
"The height of the runway strobe lights is 0.7m above ground level," she said.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote; "Emirates cannot comment on the investigation as it is still underway."
...however they leapt ahead and forced the pilots to resign whilst the investigation is still underway. This is seriously going to come back and haunt them.
I've heard three ex EK staff members are involved in the investigation from the CASA side; one AVMED doc who was continually frustrated with the lack of progress the fatigue committee was able to make during his time here, and two others who were involved with the EK safety department. Not good for EK I suspect.
I also suspect Ek will be paying out a very large compensation sum to the two pilots they forced to resign..EK has a real history of screwing up in this regard, and I doubt this situation will end any differently.
My final prediction; the talking horse will be the walking horse after this, and maybe even squealy. They'll be the next fall guys when the CASA investigation is completed. This one won't be swept under the carpet the way JNB was.
Oh..and I think the DOW will reach 10,000 soon, and it'll be fine and sunny in DXB 2mora. But what do I know?
...however they leapt ahead and forced the pilots to resign whilst the investigation is still underway. This is seriously going to come back and haunt them.
I've heard three ex EK staff members are involved in the investigation from the CASA side; one AVMED doc who was continually frustrated with the lack of progress the fatigue committee was able to make during his time here, and two others who were involved with the EK safety department. Not good for EK I suspect.
I also suspect Ek will be paying out a very large compensation sum to the two pilots they forced to resign..EK has a real history of screwing up in this regard, and I doubt this situation will end any differently.
My final prediction; the talking horse will be the walking horse after this, and maybe even squealy. They'll be the next fall guys when the CASA investigation is completed. This one won't be swept under the carpet the way JNB was.
Oh..and I think the DOW will reach 10,000 soon, and it'll be fine and sunny in DXB 2mora. But what do I know?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: in the kitchen
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes they do. When doing the SOPs the CM2 calls the V speeds and the Green Dot speed from the MCDU. The CM1 confirms that it's within 2 kts of the computed Green Dot speed from the laptop. If it's not within 2 kts, something is wrong
This doesn't change the fact that we do have a gross error check and I think that if it's properly done the system is not that bad.
The TOW weight used in the LPC is first checked by CM1 against the INIT-B TOW and, eventually, the INIT-B TOW is compared with the one on the Load sheet by both pilots. How many more times must a weight be checked? Until the procedure becomes ridiculous?
I remember the last time the TO performance error check was changed that some guys were complaining that this was to much and we were not trying to go to the moon...
mad
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The gross error check will not trap this error if both pilots are working with the same, incorrect weight. What if the init data didn't uplink and were entered manually? If the zfw has been entered incorrectly by CM1 and CM2 uses this weight as the basis for his performance calculations, then everything will seem peachy when they do the gross error check. The only trapping mechanism remaining then would be the arrival of the load sheet, but by this (rushed?) stage you could possibly have the confirmation bias problem enter into the picture as well... And when the underlying error might be the 100t scenario, I have absolutely no problem seeing this as a possible way that the garden path became illuminated.
Best of luck gentlemen - sorry it had to be you that night.
Best of luck gentlemen - sorry it had to be you that night.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only trapping mechanism remaining then would be the arrival of the load sheet, but by this (rushed?) stage you could possibly have the confirmation bias problem enter into the picture as well...
(copy paste of my contribution on another thread)
" ....... it should be entirely left up to the two operating pilots with the final loadsheet, provided mostly 10-15 minutes before ETD. The TO calculation should be done together and only then, with the actual loadsheet and the actual numbers and (most probably) actual runway and its conditions. That may sound late, but having done all the preflight preparations, the last 10 minutes should be calm and reserved for these crucial calculations and inputs, and subsequently adequate and specific briefing. The operating pilots should throw out ANYBODY during this phase, even including the augmenting Captain who has 30000 hours more on his cap, is TRE and comes from the land that invented better North Atlantic crossings than Lufthansa.
Any calculations and endless briefing-blahblahs done before are useless and dangerously mind pre-setting, as we subconsciously tend to thinks "it's already done".
I tend to go for fighting distractions, as a main enemy before take-off....... ."
Last edited by pool; 13th Apr 2009 at 14:33.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ek pilot - the init data uplink on the Airbus DOES NOT include ZFWCG (28% for the planning stage) or the EZFW
It does uplink the expected ramp fuel though..
It does uplink the expected ramp fuel though..
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WK, I've been away from the AB for a while, so I apologize for this lapse of memory. However, that only makes my argument more valid, I would think? Maybe uplinking the ezfw alongside the rest of the data could be one way of trapping this kind of error?
pool, I find myself agreeing with just about everything you've written on this thread. In an ideal world your way of doing things in the final stages of preflight would be preferred but meanwhile, as we try to improve the processes in our own little ways, maybe we can also offer our colleagues a point of view on how to deal with similar scenarios in the future?
pool, I find myself agreeing with just about everything you've written on this thread. In an ideal world your way of doing things in the final stages of preflight would be preferred but meanwhile, as we try to improve the processes in our own little ways, maybe we can also offer our colleagues a point of view on how to deal with similar scenarios in the future?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ekp - fair enough
Personally I write the ACARS AZFW on my copy of the CFP, add the take-off fuel and compare that with BOTH the laptop weight AND the INIT B TOW - done it since we got the laptops.. Makes a 3 way check, but doesn't make it infallible if I'm knackered...
Personally I write the ACARS AZFW on my copy of the CFP, add the take-off fuel and compare that with BOTH the laptop weight AND the INIT B TOW - done it since we got the laptops.. Makes a 3 way check, but doesn't make it infallible if I'm knackered...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?c...d-90ca817fdd11
Heavily Loaded Airliner Barely Got Off The Ground
An Emirates Airlines flight departing Melbourne's International Airport for Dubai last month came close to tragedy, authorities revealed Saturday. Investigators upgraded the classification of what happened from an "incident" to an "accident."
Preliminary investigation details published by The Melbourne Herald Sun said that on March 20, a heavily laden Airbus A340-500 (type shown above) operating as Emirates Flight EK407 barely made it off the ground. The plane carried a load of 225 passengers and about 350,000 pounds of jet fuel.
The A340 pilots apparently used all 11,500 feet of the runway before rotating at an estimated 175 mph. The plane's tail scraped the runway due to excessive upward pitch, producing a shower of sparks and smoke in the cabin.
The plane staggered into the air, wiping out a 70 cm tall (2 foot, 3.5 inch) strobe light that was 170 meters (557 feet) off the end of the runway, and barely cleared a 2.5 meter (8 foot) perimeter fence half a kilometer (1640 feet) from the runway's end.
The report added the airliner took out an antenna and narrowly missed a small building before eventually gaining more altitude. It then flew over Port Phillip Bay and dumped some of its fuel load, before returning to land at the airport over a half hour later.
Neville Blyth, a senior transportation safety investigator with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, said the aircraft suffered heavy damage in the accident. "It can't be flown again without repairs," he said. The ATSB has released the plane to Emirates, but it remains in a cargo hold at Melbourne Airport.
Blythe added, "It's a serious investigation. There are a fair bit of resources being put into this one." ATSB investigators have already examined the aircraft's flight data recorders and interviewed the crew. The pilots have since resigned.
Australian aviation expert Dick Smith said, "It's the closest thing to a major aviation accident in Australia for years. The people (passengers) are incredibly lucky, it was an overrun where the plane didn't get airborne." Despite the close call, no injuries were reported.
An Emirates spokesman said, "The report from the ATSB has not yet been finalized, and as such it would be inappropriate for Emirates to make any comment at this point in time."
Heavily Loaded Airliner Barely Got Off The Ground
An Emirates Airlines flight departing Melbourne's International Airport for Dubai last month came close to tragedy, authorities revealed Saturday. Investigators upgraded the classification of what happened from an "incident" to an "accident."
Preliminary investigation details published by The Melbourne Herald Sun said that on March 20, a heavily laden Airbus A340-500 (type shown above) operating as Emirates Flight EK407 barely made it off the ground. The plane carried a load of 225 passengers and about 350,000 pounds of jet fuel.
The A340 pilots apparently used all 11,500 feet of the runway before rotating at an estimated 175 mph. The plane's tail scraped the runway due to excessive upward pitch, producing a shower of sparks and smoke in the cabin.
The plane staggered into the air, wiping out a 70 cm tall (2 foot, 3.5 inch) strobe light that was 170 meters (557 feet) off the end of the runway, and barely cleared a 2.5 meter (8 foot) perimeter fence half a kilometer (1640 feet) from the runway's end.
The report added the airliner took out an antenna and narrowly missed a small building before eventually gaining more altitude. It then flew over Port Phillip Bay and dumped some of its fuel load, before returning to land at the airport over a half hour later.
Neville Blyth, a senior transportation safety investigator with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, said the aircraft suffered heavy damage in the accident. "It can't be flown again without repairs," he said. The ATSB has released the plane to Emirates, but it remains in a cargo hold at Melbourne Airport.
Blythe added, "It's a serious investigation. There are a fair bit of resources being put into this one." ATSB investigators have already examined the aircraft's flight data recorders and interviewed the crew. The pilots have since resigned.
Australian aviation expert Dick Smith said, "It's the closest thing to a major aviation accident in Australia for years. The people (passengers) are incredibly lucky, it was an overrun where the plane didn't get airborne." Despite the close call, no injuries were reported.
An Emirates spokesman said, "The report from the ATSB has not yet been finalized, and as such it would be inappropriate for Emirates to make any comment at this point in time."
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Emirates spokesman said, "The report from the ATSB has not yet been finalized, and as such it would be inappropriate for Emirates to make any comment at this point in time."
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What did you expect from a pair of cowards who will happily screw around with 2400 pilots jobs just to protect their own positions.
The guys at MEL screwed up, no doubt, but the company (TCED, TCAS & TCAT) should be ashamed, as people have said only once the full report comes out should final judgement be made on the pilots.
The guys at MEL screwed up, no doubt, but the company (TCED, TCAS & TCAT) should be ashamed, as people have said only once the full report comes out should final judgement be made on the pilots.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nepal
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I have been wondering & I don't believe that it has been definitively answered on this thread as yet.
Did the augment tech crew also resign, or was it just the operating tech crew?
Anyone know?
Did the augment tech crew also resign, or was it just the operating tech crew?
Anyone know?
