EK Melbourne accident: final report?

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by BBtB

Finally, if I was augmenting and was told by the operating Captain to stay out of the cockpit until doors close... we would have some issues to resolve!

No issue - you'd be replaced

Originally Posted by dustyprops

"However I will take a glance at the speeds and flex as I take my seat!" What a clever boy you are.

Don't need to be clever - it's just called having a vague notion of what 360 tonnes requires to get airborne! Not difficult is it?????

Originally Posted by BBtB

that augmenting crews will put their blind faith in the operating crew

You mean like the pax and CC on a normal two pilot flight from PVG do???


Save the hystrionics gents... From the safety dept I hear that the CVR is an hour of bullsh1t chit-chat. Forget the interruptions!!! It was not a classical Swiss-cheese situation! With proper use of SOP this accident would NEVER have happened And no, it didn't need new SOPs afterwards as was the knee-jerk reaction, they were robust enough beforehand if they had been followed...

TangoUniform. Willful violation of SOPS might not be in the definition of 'accident' but it bl00dy well nearly lost us a 345 and full complement of pax and crew

[White Knight]

Yeah Whight Knight, try demanding that from any Captain I know, to stay out of the cockpit during pre-flights. Then feel free to off-load us.

Ok! no problem. When I'm PIC you'll do as I ask during cockpit prep....

You seriously would do that to your fellow colleagues who are trying to help you out?

Very helpful when they're yakking on their Blackberry or Iphone

I WANT input from the two guys sitting behind us.

Which is fine if you've obviously missed something major like an engine fire on the roll - but during the preflight on a two-crew aeroplane? Don't be a dick SI any more than you already are!!!!

Telling your fellow pilots to leave the cockpit during pre-flights, is not only a stupid thing to do, it is disrespectful and should adequately demonstrate a Captains lack of ability to handle situations

Bullsh1t.............. You're a weak type SI, we can tell from your previous postings

I am not surprised that the likes of WK and WIZ have issues in the cockpit

Have you EVER been in my flightdeck????? No!!! A simply libellous statement from you SI

I feel bad for our decent F/O's who have to listen to some Captains talk them through the entire approach phase or advising them to deviate 100nm around TRW's that are 5K' below

So do I!!! Any skipper doing that should be strung up by the balls.......... Oh......... You think I do that??? Silly me for thinking that you'd made a reasonable statement

If I sink to your level of command Whight Knight, then feel free to come and rip off my epilets

You'll never be anywhere near my level sunshine, so I suggest you rip those bars off now

[5star]

I'm with White Knight on this one.
This was not about navigating around CB's or flying a difficult approach.
A simple mistake was made during calculation of T.O. data (ok, can happen) but because of cutting corners the error did not get picked up at a later stage. You should know when to cut corners and when not. And if you intentionally remove the safety net during TO calculations...it means you have NO idea what you are doing and you are playing with the lives of hundreds of people behind you....
It's called complacency. Simple.

[Jumeirah James]

Thanks for all your replies Gents. So, the report is due soon.

Cheers

JJ

[harry the cod]

sittingidly

In all seriousness, I really have to question your sanity. Are you really this dumb or do you just do it to wind people up? Your post DID suggest otherwise! You are making accusations against fellow colleagues you know nothing about. Just read the last 3 paragraphs.

You make the most confusing and contradictory posts I've ever known on these forums. You're views change back and forth by the hour. In fact, the only thing you're consistant with is your inconsistancy!

Harry

[HPSOV L]

Bah.
Subject is too subtle and complex for most of the blockheads who post here.

[captainsmiffy]

Yes, I think SI was defamatory and he does appear to like posting in an inflammatory manner (we don't have to bite though, do we?!) but he did - for once - make a good point reference these new SOPs that the airbus has been saddled with and about the manner in which they were brought in.....

In 26 years of aviation I have never seen so much confusion created about SOPs as was the case when this came in, by disc, in the post. I happened to be on leave when it did and I missed much of the time 'given' (!!) to prep for it. I was left playing 'catch up' with important stuff!

I have colleagues now telling me 'let's ignore that estimated ZFW **** and do it like we did previously'; I see confusion as to who puts the numbers in and when and I see confusion as to what are the limits before a change is required from the estimated figures to the actual figures. The info is all there buthave you reviewed the way in which it is written lately? There are yellow pages replacing other pages, pages that refer to other procedures in different sections etc etc. Doesn't there come a time when we stop 'papering over the cracks' with temporary changes and write the whole thing afresh? I am sure much of the confusion originates from both the way in which this change was promulgated and in the manner that it appears in the book. Take a look at FCOM 3 in the cruise, you will see what I mean if you read it.....especially if you read it so that you are able to teach somebody every little nuance. I wager that you will be exasperated by the number of cross references to 3.03.91 etc

Don't get me wrong, I believe that I have a reasonable grip on these new procedures - but it took reading it many times and lots of discussions with many other pilots. Believe me, what I did on day 1 and my understanding of the new SOPs was very different to what I do now! We both operated very contentedley that we had a good handle on the new procedures and yet a post flight discussion brought up so many different thoughts that we went into the books again and found a fresh perspective. Then I flew with somebody else and his understanding was different again.....and again...!!

Now EK has had 2 serious incidents in this very same area, admittedley with different SOPs. Arguably any set of SOPs might have been ignored by one crew (I don't know, I wasn't there). But if I was responsible for bringing in new changes here as a manager then I would be a bit more pro-active about the whole thing than has been shown to date. For the record, I agree with whomever said that the existing SOPs were already robust enough as they stood anyway.

One last thing; in my many years in the cockpit I would never be so arrogant as to assume that I could do it all myself to the extent that I would refuse the help/watchful eye of two other experienced and professional eyes in the cockpit and actively shun them! Yes, if they were rude enough to natter on a mobile then they would be asked to leave but, until then, their input would be valued. I have flown the 340 at 360 tonnes, but not nearly so much as other guys here and I don't neccessarily have the same 'feel' yet for the numbers as others clearly do; therefore I welcome somebody casting a critical eye over my shoulder. Indeed I usually hand the bloody computer aft with a request to check the numbers and to involve the other other crew members. (Surprisingly, once one of my colleagues pointed out that I shouldn't do this as it made the other guys culpable as well should we have screwed up the numbers and it were not noticed! I don't subscribe to that view.)

Just my ten penneth worth...

[BigGeordie]

Did Ed not issue an FCI (might have been an e-mail or an FCN. Could have been an FOM amendment. Some piece of correspondence anyway.) saying the augmenting crew were not allowed to get involved in any safety critical aspects of the flight, especially performance calculations, and weren't even allowed to do the walkround? Was that superseded along with Ed?

I'm on the Airbus. We don't do much ULR these days so I'm a bit out of touch.

[harry the cod]

Captainsmiffy

Good post. Your point on SOP confusion is extremely pertinent to our operations. This would explain Why BigGeordie is confused. The way information is promulgated in this Company is shameful and borders on negligence from those tasked with managing it. Stick it on a disc, leave it in their files and let them find the changes. Don't explain the reasons behind the change and write it in such a confusing way that it's bound to cause chaos and misinterpretation on line. Altimeter calls on the boeing fleet? Priceless and just one of many examples. Way to go Fleet!

BigGeordie

God only knows where that information came from and if it's still valid. What I remember, vaguely, was that the augmenting crew could do the walkround if delegated. However, you were still responsible. Bearing in mind this crew should be tired, it would be your decision whether you used them. Even if you did, they should not take part in critical safety checks or performance calculations.

So, there you go, typical Ed missive that's clear as mud! All the onus on you with the Company playing it's usual trick of taking no friggin reponsibility or offering clear and unambigious guidelines. Whilst we're quick to blame the talking horse, his boss is still here and it's his responsibility to tackle the problem.

Perhaps when he's finished counting his profit share he will spend the time resolving these issues. The problem is, he may be some time.

Harry

[Gillegan]

While not trying to minimize the responsibilities that we all have individually, this company is notoriously deficient when recognizing its own responsibility and whenever possible, tries to simply fob off any issues as individual issues rather than identifying root causes and addressing them as such. Jo'burg is an excellent case in point. While it is tempting to simply point to a trainer teaching an incorrect technique, where was the standardization and quality control of the trainers that was the company's responsibility and where was the acknowledgement of such? The 340-300 was introduced in a rush of commercial pressure with little or no training (the takeoff in Jo'burg was the first time either crew had actually flown the type I believe) and it was at least 6 more years before the training department even made an effort to standardize their instructors.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by captainsmiffy

One last thing; in my many years in the cockpit I would never be so arrogant as to assume that I could do it all myself to the extent that I would refuse the help/watchful eye of two other experienced and professional eyes in the cockpit and actively shun them!

I sincerely hope you can do it yourself - well, at least as a two crew op, because that is how these aeroplanes are designed to be operated and flown........ The cockpit prep itself is exactly the same for a Doha as it is for Melbourne! Do you need help to organise a trip to Doha???? Then again, as an augment guy I have seen some incredible fannying around up front You know, do we take 2.3 tonnes extra to MEL or 1.9 tonnes?

[TangoUniform]

WK, you are a CRM "wet dream". Gotta love a guy who knows he is the master of his domain, under all circumstances. Well at least that's what your posts indicate to me. So please forgive me if I am reading them incorrectly, as I do most FCIs, SOPs, FCNs and weekly summaries.

[White Knight]

TU

[captainsmiffy]

WK, you know VERY WELL that you are responding to a part of my sentence and ridiculing it to score a cheap point whilst ignoring the rest. The actual statement I made was this.." I would never be so arrogaant as to assume that I could do it all myself to the extent that I would refuse the help/watchful eye of two other experienced and professional eyes in the cockpit and actively shun them". Now that is a million miles from saying that I 'need help' in setting up a cockpit...... That is an acknowledgement that man is not infallible; why is there an augment team there? Because of the duty times and that implies that we might, just might be tired etc....So that extra pair of eyes is a welcome thing. Get off of your hobby horse and do a CRM course, learn to be a team member again. If my statement really is that hard for you to follow, WK, then let's put it in a more basic format - if the resource is there then use it! Do I really need to spell that out?!

Interestingly, you posted earlier that

'If I'm operating PIC I tell the augment guys to stay out of the flightdeck until doors close... If I'm augmenting I will stay out anyway.'
You then posted this
'Then again, as an augment guy I have seen some incredible fannying around up frontYou know, do we take 2.3 tonnes extra to MEL or 1.9 tonnes'
How would you know if you, presumably, were following your own rigid rules and hadn't actually entered the cockpit as the augment?! Is it one rule for you and a different one for everybody else?

[White Knight]

Smiffy - I said I've SEEN. Past tense! Now I just stay the heck out until doors close Mind you - as we have hardly any augment trips on the 'Bus it's academic at the moment!

And I reiterate my point - it's a TWO crew op. Simple. And I was talking about the preflight prep which you seem to have missed.... As for fatigue, well, you'd better get an augmenting crew on every night turn by your logic

[captainsmiffy]

let's agree to differ then......agreed it's a 2-crew op but if there are extra resources available then, in my book, use them. There might well be the occasion that these guys happen to pick up an error that might have gone un-noticed by me and my oppo...and, as you again well now we are all going to work tired on the 'bus. Your way works for you, mine works for me - hope that you don't ever make a mistake, I know that I do....

[thrash]

All EK airplanes are designed for 2 pilot crews.
The fact we operate with 3 or 4 pilots on occasions does not detract from the fact that there are only 2 pilots at the controls and in charge of the plane.
In the case of Australia trips we depart 10am Dubai time and are acclimatised. The return for operating crew is 36 hours rest and departure around 4pm Dubai time. The times are reasonable and certainly much better than some flights operated back of the clock with only 2 pilots.
There is nothing worse than catching straying fingers on center and overhead consoles with peripheral vision during the cockpit set-up. This increases workload as we must then ask what have you done?
There is a requirement for dispatcher, engineer and refueller to be in the cockpit. If both augmenters remain in cockpit it makes this very difficult.
Please make yourselves scarce during pre-departure phase.
When I call for pre-flight checks I am not interested in your 'tested 100%' response.

[captainsmiffy]

.....new identity?!!

[captainsmiffy]

So it has been pointed out to me that this is a 2-crew aeroplane, rightly so. But one (!) of the subscribers to this point of view also states

"If I'm augmenting I will stay out anyway. I will however take a glance at the speeds and flex as I take my seat!"

Is this, by his own arguement, an oxymoron? Either it is a 2crew aeroplane and we thus trust the 2 pilots to get on with it 'and stay the hell out' or we check critical stuff ourselves. If we check the critical stuff ourselves, as augmenters, then why the hell is he arguing against me?!!

I would suggest that being anti towards the augmenters inthe cockpit either hides a dislike of being professionally judged or that an augmenter may have had a lapse of discipline in the cockpit and overstepped the mark sometime in the past. Nobody should be touching switches except the takeoff crew, unless specifically invited to do so. To do otherwise is a major breakdown of both discipline and cockpit etiquette in my book. Please don't judge all augmenters, however, by the actions of a few. EK should write more in the way of guidance here for augmenting crew as to exactly what their responsibilities are - there is precious little that I have found.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by cap'nsmiffy

.....new identity?!!

NO....................

Originally Posted by cap'nsmiffy

I would suggest that being anti towards the augmenters inthe cockpit either hides a dislike of being professionally judged or that an augmenter may have had a lapse of discipline in the cockpit

I'm not ANTI at all. I just don't need them when I'm prepping the flight! You could put 10 TREs in there for an ALC and I wouldn't give a monkeys!!! And no augmenter has had a lapse of discipline in MY office
As for EK writing guidance for augmenters. Try using common sense This job is not rocket science except for the minority that make it out to be

Anyway Smiffy - Blue side up and safe flying