EK207 Jfk

[777-Up]

Originally Posted by donpizmeov

My point being glofish that the holy Boeing FCOM did not prevent the BOM nor the DOH events.

Got a public link for the events, so we can investigate further? Was it an ILS? Did the crew set the altitude correctly? What do you say about setting gnd+1,000ft that didn't work?

Throw us a bone, man!

[donpizmeov]

777 up. I am surprised you are not aware of them. Both incidences were 777. Both ended up pretty close to the same heights AGL at the same distances as the 380 cases spoken of here. Try an ASR search maybe.

[777-Up]

Originally Posted by donpizmeov

777 up. I am surprised you are not aware of them. Both incidences were 777.

Don, I'm not on the 777. Without revealing specifics, if you know & could tell us the general nature of why setting a lower MCP altitude may fail to protect in certain cases, would be appreciated.

[gearlever]

Drifting that far away from the Canarsie incident speaks volumes....., sorry.

[777-Up]

Originally Posted by gearlever

Drifting that far away from the Canarsie incident speaks volumes....., sorry.

It is related, Sir gear lever. Comments were being made 'improper' FCOM procedures were being used in the JFK event that's the subject of this thread. That's not the case.

Manufacturer FCOM procedures were in place for JFK event. Not saying they are or aren't the best possible, but they're not 'improper' procedures.

[Seamin Stains]

Originally Posted by SOPS

It seems, no matter how good you are, or your previous excellent record, you really are only as good as your last sector.

So True!!
I remember my early days as an Aviator doing that Canarsie VOR 13L/R approach hand flown raw data in low vis looking for the lead in lights. Later my 1st wide body Command being checked into Hong Kong on the famous Checker board approach. Both scenarios were the same. There was no FMS/FMC RNP/AR /RF issues. And the result was always the same every time!! "a happy landing! Even in a 25-30 kt crosswind!! We were trained in the sim TO FLY THE AIRPLANE!!!!
However for whatever the reason, we have been brow beaten by the Airlines and the Industry into being computer programmers and to following procedures like ants on a sugar fix! Common sense and critical thinking is illegal.
With the added Arab twist that if you make a mistake even though you followed that procedure, and the approach and landing was successful. Depending on who you are, they will find another procedure that you missed and nail you for it!

[777-Up]

Originally Posted by Seamin Stains

There was no FMS/FMC RNP/AR /RF issues. And the result was always the same every time!! "a happy landing! Even in a 25-30 kt crosswind!!

Might want to examine the data here below, pre-FMS, before making sweeping statements. The accident rate was much higher before at the two stations you mention. It is possible to provide internal guidance & 'fly the airplane'. Not mutually exclusive for most professional pilots;

http://aviation-safety.net/database/airport/airport.php?id=JFK

https://aviation-safety.net/database/airport/airport.php?id=HKG1

[Schnowzer]

So here we are a month down the line with the crew’s careers hanging by a thread. They screwed up the procedure, got too low, recognized it late then went around. The holes in the Swiss cheese lined up nicely.

1. Curving approach to runway
2. No RNP-AR capability
3. Vertically selected NPA
4. Procedure design mismatch
5. 4am body time
6. Approach unfamiliarity
7. Commenced descent too early
8. Warned by ATC continued
9. Realized cock-up went round

Barriers still available:
10. Terrain caution (went off after MAP initiated)
11. Terrain warning pull-up

This has resulted in sympathetic colleagues:
General butt covering
Procedure bashing
Crew bashing
Emirates bashing
ATC bashing
JFK bashing
Management bashing
Training bashing
380 bashing
FCOM comparisons
777 bashing
New procedures etc. etc.

Probable cause, crew screwed up due to misunderstanding the approach with a few contributory factors. So whilst embarrassing was it as disastrous as perceived?

Solution isn’t firing, isn’t bashing, should be education.

[777-Up]

Originally Posted by Schnowzer

So here we are a month down the line with the crew’s careers hanging by a thread. They screwed up the procedure, got too low, recognized it late then went around. The holes in the Swiss cheese lined up nicely.

Agree with much of what you say. Unfortunately, on Pprune.org many wrong and/or unsubstantiated statements are made, such as 'A380 fix is available... operator too cheap to pay for it', or, 'can't have FMS guidance AND fly the airplane'.

Such statements are misleading & can become false beliefs among general pilot population... driving us further from the appropriate education solutions, as you rightly say.

[v1r8]

Originally Posted by Schnowzer

Solution isn’t firing, isn’t bashing, should be education.

Exactly. As in what any normal Airline in a first world country would do. EK has the people for this so let them do it instead of micro managing them.

[v1r8]

My airline every couple of months based on FOQA data shows us computer animated cockpit pictures and animations on our company app on our IPads of unstablized approaches that took place system wide last few months (obviously de identified and no flight numbers) so we can learn from what caused it. And no obviously the crew to whom this happened did not get in trouble for it.

Also based on this data we create our training events yearly. Now, if there is gross misconduct crews will get asked what happened to identify if there is a weakness in the training system, and where necessary pulled off line for extra training.

[jack schidt]

Herein is the flaw with the specially created RNAV X 13L plate. This flaw allows pilots down to the runway prior to a missed approach whereas the VOR GPS 13L shows the MAP at the 800ft DMYHL Point.

Therefore, fly the regulated VOR GPS 13L and you go around at 800ft DMYHL if not visual. Fly the RNAV X 13L and there is still a procedure to be followed on the FCU, height calls to be checked and made before you get to the MAP at 0 DME or over the threshold.

The regulated VOR GPS 13L clearly implies you get visual at 800ft and do nothing but fly the approach. The RNAV X 13L means below 800ft, having become visual, the pilots continue to manipulate the FCU while looking in and checking heights for distances before the MAP, this leads you below 800ft in a descending turn, over populated areas looking at the procedure and not going around if wrong until the threshold, which implies being lower than normally regulated 800ft before abandoning the approach.

Regards J

[gearlever]

Thx Schnowzer,

excellent comment!

[SOPS]

Sacking people is not the answer, we all know that. However it is the only thing the EK mentality allows. Im stuffed if I know how many "babies they have thrown out with the bath water".

[Airbubba]

Originally Posted by Schnowzer

8. Warned by ATC continued

Is there a penalty for a go-around at EK? Was the crew afraid to go missed on a controller's altitude alert? Did they wait for the EGWPS alert and reference a matrix to see if it was a caution or warning?

The wheel and the no-fault go around have been invented elsewhere.

Originally Posted by v1r8

My airline every couple of months based on FOQA data shows us computer animated cockpit pictures and animations on our company app on our IPads of unstablized approaches that took place system wide last few months (obviously de identified and no flight numbers) so we can learn from what caused it. And no obviously the crew to whom this happened did not get in trouble for it.

Also based on this data we create our training events yearly. Now, if there is gross misconduct crews will get asked what happened to identify if there is a weakness in the training system, and where necessary pulled off line for extra training.

That's the way it's done in the big leagues. If I'm shooting an approach that looks like it might not be stable at 1000, I have absolutely no paperwork or penalty if I take it around and try again.

If I get it stable by 800 and land instead of going around, I'm looking over my shoulder for a courtesy call from the FOQA folks (the name changes every few years). But, I'm not intimidated into submission by any company threat or pressure on any operational decision. If I get it wrong, I get training, not punishment.

[v1r8]

Yup, exactly friend.

[SOPS]

Unfourtuatly, FOQA in Emirates is ELOM..or something like that. It down loads automatically,after every flight. Some older models are down loaded every day. It is not used as a "trend monitoring" system as it was designed, but as another tool to "blame" the crew responsible.

[777-Up]

Originally Posted by jack schidt

Herein is the flaw with the specially created RNAV X 13L plate....

Jack, you may have some valid concerns. If you wanted to use the plainer, published 'VOR or GPS' 13L approach plate, and plain 'VOR' FMS coding in order to avoid what you've described, and have absolutely ZERO vertical FMS guidance from 800ft, or lateral guidance around the curve, what's stopping you?

It's a genuine question, I'm not taking a position.

The guidance on how to do the 'pure VOR' is in CCI pages and the chart is there if you prefer it. Pure VOR is messy though, and pilots have had safety events doing that VOR procedure, also. Flying wide, over the racecourse for example. Yes, it's happened.

The RNAV-X text guidance is published as a 'Technique'. A look at the header in the associated text will confirm. By definition, techniques are not mandatory.

If one is confident the 'pure-VOR' approach from 20-years ago is much superior and will result in no events, the old-fashioned 'VOR or GPS 13L/13R' Lido chart is there for you, and so is the FMS line-selection (all guidance ends 90-degrees to the runway & terminates miles away from the threshold). Just like the old days. Good luck!

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by Airbubba

Is there a penalty for a go-around at EK?

NO.........

[BANANASBANANAS]

Originally Posted by White Knight

NO.........

Technically, a correct statement.

But then, when they look at what prompted the go around ....................!