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

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

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

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

Old 18th Sep 2017, 15:54
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 79
Emirates A388 - Moscow UUDD, GA from 400 feet AGL, 8nm out.

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

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.
sierra5913 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 16:04
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 962
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.
J.O. is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 16:39
  #3 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 71
Posts: 3,000
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.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 16:53
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 1,759
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 )
atakacs is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 17:01
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,912
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 17:01
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
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.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 17:09
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 965
Originally Posted by rat 5 View Post
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
gearlever is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 17:17
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 346
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 ?
recceguy is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 17:22
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,090
But then again, captains of A380's are not newbies
Are you sure? Check the ME forum .......
glofish is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 17:23
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
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)
Discorde is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 19:33
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: europe
Posts: 112
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.
Enos is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 19:59
  #12 (permalink)  

I Have Control
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 42
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.
RoyHudd is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 21:46
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,345
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.
galaxy flyer is online now  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 23:11
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,844
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.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2017, 23:41
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 52
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by RoyHudd
Hard to screw that up, even locals.
Wasn't 'locals' in this case.

Originally Posted by Galaxy Flyer
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.
White Knight is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2017, 00:19
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,345
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?
galaxy flyer is online now  
Old 19th Sep 2017, 00:47
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 52
Posts: 2,768
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!
White Knight is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2017, 00:54
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,345
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.
galaxy flyer is online now  
Old 19th Sep 2017, 01:01
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,363
There is a problem using QFE in aircraft equipped with EGPWS. It leads to un-warranted activations.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2017, 01:23
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 52
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
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!
White Knight is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.