Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Middle East
Reload this Page >

EK Fatbus FMS

Wikiposts
Search
Middle East Many expats still flying in Knoteetingham. Regional issues can be discussed here.

EK Fatbus FMS

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 31st Mar 2016, 04:42
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: OZ
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 2 Posts
EK Fatbus FMS

An Emirates Airbus A380-800, registration A6-EOP performing flight EK-19 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Manchester,EN (UK), was on approach to Manchester's runway 23R (length 3048m/10,000 feet) when the crew went around from about 1300 feet MSL due to a computer warning the runway was too short for landing. The crew positioned for another approach to runway 23R but went around from 1100 feet MSL again due to the same warning about 14 minutes after the first go around. The aircraft entered a hold at 8000 feet, the crew requested runway 23L (length 3050 meters/10,007 feet) and attempted an approach to runway 23L about one hour after the first go around but went around again from about 1100 feet due to the warning runway 23L was too short too. The crew decided to divert to London Heathrow,EN (UK), climbed to FL190 and landed safely on Heathrow's runway 27L (length 3660m/12,000 feet) about 2:10 hours after the first go around.

The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground in Heathrow for 2 hours, then departed again for Manchester and completed a safe landing on runway 23R on its first approach after diversion and total 4th approach to Manchester.

On Mar 30th 2016 Emirates' press office stated, the three go-arounds were made due to weather, with winter storm Katie battering Manchester.

The UK's Met Office issued a severe weather warning indicating the arrival of storm Katie for Mar 28th 2016 only, Katie began affecting the UK around 00:00Z on Easter Monday (Mar 28th) and had passed the UK by about noon.

Passengers reported the crew announced a computer glitch as cause for the go-arounds.
Source Incident: Emirates A388 at Manchester on Mar 26th 2016, FMS decides runways too short
Buckshot is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 05:25
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Land of Milk and Honey
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah we've already done that one dude...check either the Watch Repair thread or the one about the fire at The Address...
170to5 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 05:31
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground in Heathrow for 2 hours, then departed again for Manchester and completed a safe landing on runway 23R on its first approach after diversion and total 4th approach to Manchester.

On Mar 30th 2016 Emirates' press office stated, the three go-arounds were made due to weather, with winter storm Katie battering Manchester.

The UK's Met Office issued a severe weather warning indicating the arrival of storm Katie for Mar 28th 2016 only, Katie began affecting the UK around 00:00Z on Easter Monday (Mar 28th) and had passed the UK by about noon.
Yeah, it's been done to death already - although interesting that the EK press office blames the go arounds on winter storm Katie! The GAs happened two days before Katie hit the UK; Manchester was far less battered on the 28th than LGW or LHR...
White Knight is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 07:07
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Passengers reported the crew announced a computer glitch as cause for the go-arounds.
If true, then why wouldn't they have deactivated that particular computer and went for the alternate method, as per FCOM?
glofish is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 07:12
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dubai
Age: 55
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Because it is not an FCOM procedure to deactivate it.
Kennytheking is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 07:41
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am not on the Wunderbus, so i take it from the Wunderpilots.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9325696

Therefore my question .....
glofish is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 09:02
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,040
Received 26 Likes on 10 Posts
New FCI just released with regards fault resolution on the Fat bus. Decision making tree now refers to check relevant FCOM and MEL chapters, OEB, and when that is complete and if still not resolved MCC may be contacted. If still unresolved a Boeing pilot should be then called, as they always seem to have all the answers. Should work.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 09:43
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Springfield
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why not just carry one in the Coat Locker and pull em out for the big decisions ?? I mean I can handle the chicken or beef dilemma but need some help with the tricky ones...
Praise Jebus is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 09:48
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,040
Received 26 Likes on 10 Posts
Good point PJ. Perhaps the FO could pick one up with the paperwork and strap him/her to the steely wheeler for easy transportation?
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 10:13
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DESDI or BUBIN
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just make sure they are kept in the coat locker, they start acting funny when exposed to daylight.......
Eau de Boeing is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 10:56
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank god a FCI is now published, referring the Wunderpilots to the relevant FCOM, MEL and OEB. EK is saved! I guess there would have been a solution before diverting, but again, i can only assume.

Anyway, as far as i am concerned, one JD driver asked a question here and i still could not find any of them giving an answer ...
But as they say, se non e vero e ben trovato.
glofish is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 22:37
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UAE
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The two pilots in question are solid operators. It's far more a reflection on the state of the company than the pilots. There are far more issues involved than simply landing because they 'knew' it was safe to do so. Cut them some slack.
yardman is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2016, 10:31
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: over the horizon
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is a difference of deviating from SOPS if safe to do so vs deviating from SOPS if unsafe to continue (SOPS)

the former is debatable the latter is mandatory (and that is where real airmanships comes in...)
buggerall is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2016, 12:50
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You've forgotten the other caveat;

Deviating from SOP if it's detrimental to your career and pension! (Especially when you're a union of 1)
helen-damnation is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.