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

EK207 Jfk

Old 12th Dec 2017, 11:37
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dusty West
Age: 50
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by falconeasydriver View Post
Bloggs itís not difficult, Rwy threshold into a fix page and hey Presto you have how far away it is, a good gross error check.
The trouble is, many at EK inhabit a space where a common sense approach is overridden by procedures that merely increase complexity as the various stakeholders seek to justify their influence and rely more than ever on infallible technology without ever considering that pilots can and will do just as good a job. The primary reason they think this way is simple, these very same stakeholders are themselves almost to a person intimidated by anything that isnít straight forward or something that is slightly unusual or challenging, therefore the assumption is made that a procedure is required to mitigate the challenge as they judge that a normal line pilots skills are inferior to their own.
NCE is another airport where this has been highlighted which will in time present similar type events.
There is a South African TRE who would tear a strip off of those who did that claiming it wasn't SOP, despite the fact that nothing was written to that extent. To this day I'll put some reference in the box just to needle him...as a technique of course.
The Outlaw is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 12:18
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 965
Concerning ATC bashing:

when the aircraft descended below minimums prompting tower to warn EK-207 "you appear to be extremely low on approach"
Incident: Emirates A388 at New York on Dec 4th 2017, at about 200 feet in the middle of turn to runway 13L

Looks like tower saved the ship.
gearlever is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 12:33
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by 8314 View Post
Whoís screwed what up?

As far as your story goes, I can see the AirFrance couldnít land where they should and missed their exit which messed up all the following sequence!

So whoí to blame?
Always blame the french...

Edit to add: AF files B777 and A380 to JFK, not A330..
fab777 is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 12:45
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: RůisŪn Dubh
Posts: 1,262
Originally Posted by fab777 View Post
Always blame the french...

Edit to add: AF files B777 and A380 to JFK, not A330..
AF022/023 is flown by A330-200, or at least it was til very recently.
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 12:46
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: free Europe
Posts: 90
interesting coverage by US mass media, see link to Forbes

even more interesting that it disappeared from Google News search results completely, where it ranked number as #1 this morning if one looked for "Emirates"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#4c16d0657807

Last edited by in freedom; 12th Dec 2017 at 13:57.
in freedom is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 16:11
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Springfield
Posts: 279
Bloggs itís not difficult, Rwy threshold into a fix page and hey Presto you have how far away it is, a good gross error check.
So on the RNAV X you're using the FMS to cross check the FMS? Or did i miss something im getting slow...
Praise Jebus is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 16:29
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 61
Posts: 1
After reviewing the previuos posted site of flight-data, it looks, that they were perfectly aligned with the highway before they turned for the missed approach. Could it be that they descended according the (wrong) visual cues from the highway? 13,5h flying in the dark before doing a canarsie isn`t the easy task.
And when JFK ATC will save my and the life of my 300 pax in a possible weak moment - they can do it unpolite, harsh, non-standard or what ever, I will surely thank them very much.
systemoperator is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 16:59
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 76
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by systemoperator View Post
After reviewing the previuos posted site of flight-data, it looks, that they were perfectly aligned with the highway before they turned for the missed approach. Could it be that they descended according the (wrong) visual cues from the highway? 13,5h flying in the dark before doing a canarsie isn`t the easy task.
If one uses Google Maps satellite view in a 3D slant-view, there is a large parking lot next to a rail yard just to the East of the racetrack that might give the impression of something like a runway. I'd say systemoperator is on to something. One can easily imagine the scenario.
FIRESYSOK is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 17:06
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 683
So on the RNAV X you're using the FMS to cross check the FMS? Or did i miss something im getting slow...
Errr no, Iíve never bothered to fly the Canarsie using the published RNAV approach. I have always preferred to use raw data to back up the published VOR 13L/R with the visual segment.
The RNAV in EK Ops is overly complicated and cumbersome, FWIW the last time I did the approach in anger was nearly 2 years ago in the 777F at pretty much MLW which Iím assuming is about 15kts quicker than the 380 at normal weights, and it was a non event, even thought we were offered 13R halfway through the turn onto 13L.

Fast forward to 4.50 to get an idea of a challenging evening, but just looking out the window works pretty well.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfaMBO2k7RM
falconeasydriver is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 17:13
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: windy island
Posts: 11
I am posting very few times on PPRuNe, but I would like to congratulate the controller who was on the job at the moment.

I believe, in my humble opinion, that the reason of the incident was crew fatigue and lack of CRM.

It`s lesson for all of us to be extremely aware when we are shooting these
very demanding approaches especially during darkness conditions.
birdy340 is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 18:54
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: USA/EU
Posts: 114
Itís not that much of a complicated approach. It gets complicated though if your company makes it more complicated than it needs to be instead of letting you do basic pilot stuff ... Add to that the fatigue factor and voila. Not blaming the crews here. Company creates an environment where you canít be a pilot anymore.
v1r8 is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 19:28
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,886
Aviation Safety Network just posted this write-up of the incident:

Date: 04-DEC-2017
Time: 20:25 LT
Type: Airbus A380-861
Owner/operator: Emirates
Registration: A6-EEU
C/n / msn: 147
Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0
Other fatalities: 0
Airplane damage: None
Location: New York-John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY (JFK/KJFK) -United Arab Emirates
Phase: Approach
Nature: International Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport: Dubai Airport (DXB/OMDB)
Destination airport: New York-John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY (JFK/KJFK)

Narrative: Emirates flight EK207, an Airbus A380-861, descended too low during a visual approach to runway 13L at New York-JFK International Airport.

The aircraft departed Dubai, UAE with destination New York-JFK, USA. After a flight of almost 14 hours, the aircraft was approaching JFK Airport about 20:25 hours local time. The aircraft followed the 'Parkway Visual Runway 13L/R' Approach procedure [they were cleared for the VOR 13L according to the LiveATC.net approach control clip cited earlier in this thread - Airbubba], also known as the Canarsie approach.

This approach procedure calls for pass Rockaway Point at or above 1500 feet and continue east of the Shore Parkway, crossing the closed Brooklyn Coast Guard Air Station at or above 1500 feet. For runway 13L, aircraft have to track 041į and can only continue descent after passing the Twin Stacks (a group of 218 ft high buildings). From there the aircraft has to turn right to line up with runway 13L.

EK207, however, continued descent after crossing the Coast Guard Station. The JFK Tower controller received a low altitude alert and reported this to the flight, stating the altimeter pressure to be 3043. This was read back correctly by the crew. About ten seconds later the Tower controller radioed: "Emirates Five Kilo Papa you appear to be very low on the approach, do you have the runway in sight?" Twenty seconds later, the flight crew radioed they were executing a missed approach. The flight received vectors for the missed approach and continued for an approach and landing on runway 22L at 20:37 hours.

Weather about the time of the incident (20:25 LT, 4 Dec./ 01:25Z, 5 Dec.):

KJFK 050051Z 14011KT 10SM OVC035 09/04 A3043 RMK AO2 SLP303 T00940044
KJFK 050151Z 15010KT 10SM BKN037 BKN250 09/04 A3043 RMK AO2 SLP302 T00940044

Another Emirates A380 had been involved in a similar incident while on approach to Moscow-Domodedovo Airport, on September 10, 2017 when the aircraft descended to 400 ft, approximately 7.5 Nm inbound.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=202755
Airbubba is online now  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 19:45
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Eu
Posts: 298
Lots of good points here , and some dodgy ones ! Imho by no means is this a particularly demanding approach, a bit different I agree but thatís all . Many ways to skin a cat but looking outside is a good idea ! The old kai tak semi visual in a decent crosswind was what you might call challenging and there are many more places that require flexibility to get a decent result . As for this particular company preventing pilots from being pilots I totally agree. It seems they are taking good, or at least good average operators and turning them into poor ones . ATC in JFK are what they are, and have always been , they too can react quickly and efficiently in a very busy environment, listen to the Sully transcript as an example of thinking on ones feet , non standard perhaps but there are far far worse out there using standard phraseology .
Jack D is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 20:10
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Eu
Posts: 298
New training manager previous assistant... problem solved , but wait it happened again ! Problem not solved ... what to do ?
Jack D is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 20:33
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,129
It was at night?! Seriously? Somebody needs a smack around the head.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 22:24
  #136 (permalink)  
short flights long nights
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,254
Originally Posted by Jack D View Post
New training manager previous assistant... problem solved , but wait it happened again ! Problem not solved ... what to do ?
Eye monitoring things in the sim....that will fix it!
SOPS is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 23:08
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2,637
I can't believe people are doing these kind of visual or RNP/GPS approaches with no altitude/distance cross check from the runway. SOP or not it may save your life one day when the stars align and you or ATC screw up a QNH.

It saved a AIR NZ crew on a ILS years ago in the Pacific when there was a problem with the glideslope.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2017, 04:12
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Springfield
Posts: 279
Neville the subject flight was flying an RNAV approach that follows the Canarsie approach and is designed by EK for use by the 380. The reasons for the design are questionable but one is the limition of the 380 FMS. There is a published distance height table that is based on the CRI VOR and covers from ASALT to DMYHL. Beyond that point in addition to visual cues the FMS displays a constant descent flight path which you could have validated on the previous segment from CRI to DMYHL. Using the Position page as suggested is of little use as its assumes a straight line to the threshold. The very same FMS is displaying distance to go via the curved path so why not use that. So a distance to height cross check is used or at least can and should be used on this approach as with any other. But hey I've only ever flown it once..
Praise Jebus is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2017, 05:08
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,711
Why is it a training problem? Fleet designs and test the approachs.
fatbus is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2017, 06:26
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 683
Praise..
Using the Position page as suggested is of little use as its assumes a straight line to the threshold. The very same FMS is displaying distance to go via the curved path so why not use that. So a distance to height cross check is used or at least can and should be used on this approach as with any other. But hey I've only ever flown it once..
Spoken like a true airbus pilot, “it’s in the FMS..so let’s use and rely on that”
The point is, DESPITE these wonderful procedures and sophisticated and cleverly designed approaches...the jet was descended to an altitude that bore no semblance to even a cursory check of height and distance.
How can that happen?
Part of understanding that event is to break down an approach into its component parts, and too also understand that we do as humans make mistakes, most of which can be recovered from with early enough intervention if the mistake is recognised. Part of that recognition is based when I’m operating on multiple sources.
As far as the fix page is concerned....Praise, clearly you’ve missed the point, landing on 13L I know it’s approximately 3.5 track miles from DYHML, so 3miles in the fix page threshold 13L is about right at 1000’.
It’s a gross error check to be certain that I’m in the right place for the visual segment.
Relying primarily on the FMS guidance in a visual environment is foolhardy in my view, it’s merely one source of useful but ultimately limited information.
Apologies Praise if it sounds like I’m having a go at you, I’m not, but its important to understand that the reason these procedures are created is that the egg heads and administrators believe they are safer, they believe this because most of them couldn’t fly themselves out of a wet paper bag, so when it goes wrong ordinary line pilots who have been trained this way don’t have the resilience and experience to recognise and correct an issue.
The G650 I fly around in these days is light years ahead of the 777 before, and the 380, and yet Gulfstream in their initial course and recurrent training emphasise basic mode operations in both autoflight and manual flight as they understand unlike it seems Airbus and EK that a skill set and resilience only happens and is maintained with fundamentals and basic skills.
falconeasydriver 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.