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

Is it really that hard...

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

Is it really that hard...

Old 16th Apr 2020, 19:02
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is it really that hard...

to land a modern airliner with CAVOK ?

Incident: Emirates A388 at Moscow on Sep 10th 2017, go around from about 400 feet AGL 8nm before runway
gearlever is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 19:11
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gearlever View Post
to land a modern airliner with CAVOK ?
Well, Asiana at SFO proved it's not trivial for some flight crews...
tdracer is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 19:14
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some earlier discussion of the incident in this thread:

Dxb-Dme info

Another EK A380 early descent on the Canarsie at JFK:

EK207 Jfk
Airbubba is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 19:22
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Some earlier discussion of the incident in this thread:

Dxb-Dme info

Another EK A380 early descent on the Canarsie at JFK:

EK207 Jfk
YEP.

But now final report released.
gearlever is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 20:08
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gearlever View Post
Is it really that hard... to land a modern airliner with CAVOK ?
In the JFK incident it was suggested that EK get special consideration since they fly internationally and JFK ATC was non-standard when they told the crew that they were too low:

Originally Posted by TSHEKUDU View Post
To all you guys that shouts at us ( Emirates), I want JFK ATC to take note of this as well as airbubba we fly 141 destinations everyday. It is very hard to comform and abide by all your rules and non standard ICAO that you guys throw at us.. I have flow into the guts of earth, and never experience what I experience with you guys. Personal experience is, I fly into JFK twice a year. And with all due respect JFK is the worst atc I ever had to deal with in my 22years of long haul flying because of your non standard RT. A note to your managers.
As an Emirates pilot, you are required to be ready to fly at any one of our destinations within 30 min. You as atc is sitting in your tower, so may I please ask that you take this into consideration . So please treat us accordingly.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 20:51
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
In the JFK incident it was suggested that EK get special consideration since they fly internationally and JFK ATC was non-standard when they told the crew that they were too low:
ATC?

Wait a minute.
Am I too high, too low to make it....?
gearlever is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 21:47
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is the third messup on the A380 that I've seen from EK so far... I don't know how they're training those pilots!?
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 21:53
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here's the Synopsis from the GCAA Final Report on the DME incident:

Synopsis

On 10 September 2017, an Emirates Airbus A380-861 Aircraft, registration mark A6-EEZ, operated a scheduled passenger flight EK131, from Dubai International Airport to Domodedovo International Airport, Moscow. There were a total of 448 persons onboard, comprising 422 passengers, two flight crewmembers, and 24 cabin crewmembers.

During approach into Domodedovo International Airport, the Aircraft was cleared for the runway 14R ILS approach when it was on the base leg. The Aircraft descended below its cleared altitude of 500 meters QFE prior to establishing on the localizer. The Radar Controller alerted EK131 to stop the descent. The flight crew then performed a go-around and requested vectors for a second approach. During the go-around, the minimum radio altitude reached was 395 feet above ground level, and EGPWS “Glideslope” and “Terrain Ahead - Pull Up” alerts were activated.

During the second approach as the Aircraft was on the final leg, the flight plan disappeared from the FMS leaving a blank screen. The Commander selected the UUDD14R waypoint using the DIR TO function in the FMS, which resulted in the Aircraft levelling off at 2,600 feet QNH. The flight crew performed a discontinued approach. A third approach to runway 14R was subsequently completed successfully.

The Air Accident Investigation Sector determines that:

(a) The descent below the cleared altitude during the first approach can be explained by an erroneous flight crew perception that the Aircraft would capture the 3° glideslope from above, and by insufficient coordination between the flight crewmembers. After the Co-pilot carried out the glide interception from above procedure, he focused on the horizontal position of the aircraft to establish on the localizer and neither of the two pilots maintained a correct awareness of the Aircraft vertical position.

(b) The cause of the discontinued approach on the second approach was the selection by the flight crew of a waypoint using the DIR TO function and after a relatively long discussion between them due to:

- the unavailability of the flight plan on the ND, as the FMS1, reset after the go-around, was not reconfigured by re-sequencing the flight plan as per the SOP; and.

- the Aircraft oscillation around the localizer course.

The Air Accident Investigation Sector identifies the following contributing factors to the Incident:

(a) The expectation of the Co-pilot that Radar Control might not provide the flight crew with vectors to intercept the localizer at an angle of 45 degrees or less when the Aircraft was on the base leg (90-degrees to the final approach track). The provided radar vectors inside the final approach point (FAP) together with the instruction to maintain relatively high speeds until the Aircraft was almost abeam of the initial approach fix (IAF), and the Co-pilot expectation, resulted in an unusually high workload in a dynamic approach phase.

(b) The glide interception from above procedure was performed when the Aircraft had not yet established on the ILS localizer for runway 14R. This was not in accordance with the SOP.

(c) During the period of when the glide interception from above procedure was performed and the go-around, the Aircraft position was initially outside the azimuthal coverage of the ILS glideslope signal, and when the Aircraft came within azimuthal coverage, it was outside the elevation coverage of the glideslope signal. Consequently, invalid glideslope deviation indications were displayed to the flight crew.

(d) Before performing the glide interception from above procedure, the erroneous flight crew representation of the Aircraft position gave them the perception that they were being vectored to a tight approach and that the Aircraft would capture the glideslope from above, led the pilot flying:

- to refer only to the glideslope deviation indication to determine the Aircraft vertical position instead of considering and crosschecking any other available indications (pressure altitude, vertical and navigation displays, and the DME distance table in the approach chart) which would have enabled him to reconsider and validate the Aircraft position; and

- to descend below the cleared altitude and to modify the heading vectors issued by the Air Traffic Controller.

(e) As the Aircraft was descending below 500 meters QFE, the duration of the Radar Controller’s instruction to the flight crew “not to descend further” was lengthy and the phraseology used was non-standard for an urgent instruction.

(f) As the flight crew prepared for the second approach, a multi-waypoint sequencing in a row of the flight plan occurred when the crew performed a lateral revision of the flight plan using the DIR TO CRS IN pushbutton as per the SOP at a location where several waypoints satisfied the FMS geometrical waypoint sequencing rules. A real time computation issue caused an automatic reset of FMS1.

(g) After the multi-waypoint sequencing of the flight plan and the FMS1 auto-reset during the second attempted approach, the flight crewmembers omitted to reconfigure the FMS by inserting (adjusting the sequencing of the flight plan) the runway 14R ILS approach. The flight crew did not anticipate that omitting this action, aiming at providing the missed approach route should a go-around need to be performed, would jeopardize the capture of the localizer by the AFS system.

The AAIS issued six recommendations: two to the Operator, two to Air Traffic Control, and two to the Aircraft Manufacturer.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 23:18
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 49
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How surprising..American controllers radar vectoring you to a hot and high condition..I thought they did that on purpose..you know, for sport
mattyj is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 23:45
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mattyj View Post
How surprising..American controllers radar vectoring you to a hot and high condition..I thought they did that on purpose..you know, for sport
Yes, here in the US you gotta deal with glideslope capture from above and they do tend to make it high and fast for the poor jets...not always tho
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 00:46
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mattyj View Post
How surprising..American controllers radar vectoring you to a hot and high condition..I thought they did that on purpose..you know, for sport
Originally Posted by Pugilistic Animus View Post
Yes, here in the US you gotta deal with glideslope capture from above and they do tend to make it high and fast for the poor jets...not always tho
Just to clarify, the incident with the glide slope capture from above was at DME, hard to blame that one on American controllers.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 01:18
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Take a tip from Trump. Blame everyone else for your own c0ckups.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 03:25
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 53
Posts: 2,829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pugilistic Animus
This is the third messup on the A380 that I've seen from EK so far... I don't know how they're training those pilots!?
Please don't tar all of us EK 380 pilots...........

And tbh I've never found ATC in the good 'ole US of A to be a problem
White Knight is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 03:54
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
White Knight I do not believe that all EK pilots fly that way but seeing 2 incidents of poor crosswind landings and now this; it points to something systemic, most likely the training and perhaps over reliance on automation. The main bone that I would pick with the pilots is, in two instances, they didn't do a GA which is disturbing.
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 06:06
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Emirates and many other airlines forbid their pilots to fly raw data in line and push for the max use of Automation.

Airbus: Strongly recommends to fly raw data in line operations and the maximum use of automation is discouraged by Airbus.

Source: WIN by Airbus: Operationnal Philosophy/ Use of Automation/ Manual Flying Policy. They released for the second time in December 2019 a video warning us about the paramount importance of hand flying raw data in daily operations but oh well some airlines still think it’s ok to ignore the manufacturer recommendations...
pineteam is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 06:45
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Just to clarify, the incident with the glide slope capture from above was at DME, hard to blame that one on American controllers.
I just blame US ATCOS for everything even if my electric bill is high and fast
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 07:08
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1000' unstable = GA right?
Nevertheless, ATC in USA is a mixed bag. Some airports are very good and some are piss poor. JFK is the worst. They should send some guys over to LHR or FRA and see how it could be done.
Tommy Gavin is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 07:25
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tommy Gavin View Post
1000' unstable = GA right?
Nevertheless, ATC in USA is a mixed bag. Some airports are very good and some are piss poor. JFK is the worst. They should send some guys over to LHR or FRA and see how it could be done.
Ours was 1000' in IMC 500' VMC...
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 07:35
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
​​​​​​I wouldn’t blame it solely on Emirates, just as the US controllers shouldn’t be singled out here.

Emirates is a huge airline, with most probably the biggest network, therefore exposing the industry wide flaws more rapidly.

1. Pilot quality: With the increased demand for pilots in an ever shorter period and the reducing of funds for training and renumeration for them, due to the erosion of ticket prices, it was only a matter of time until the problem of quality arises. The industry tried to mitigate this with increasing automation and a huge array of sops and technical by heart items to replace the good old thorough common sense, training and experience. The latter was always a base to deal with all kinds of situations, even with new ones, as extrapolation and improvisation were possible drawing from it. This is no longer possible with the earlier, as the stereotypical application of Pavlovs dog/sop behaviour needs a recognised condition. The startle effect is a well known fact in aviation that leads to temporary loss of situational awareness. In such a state there is no recognised condition and thus no trained reaction or applicable sop can be triggered.

2. Automation quality: There is no question about the benefits of automation. The autopilot, flight management systems, ground proximity warnings and other protections are great achievements. As with a lot of good things, humans tend to go too far, especially when profits can be increased. The manufacturers lured the airlines into buying their supermodels by promising to save on pilot training through automated protections. But such protections are only as good as their programming and you can hardly program every eventuality. Plus, would you believe it: Even engineers are fallible!!

3. At this point the ugly hypocrisy of today’s industry, and as an accomplice the regulator, arises: Our books recognise that such failures can happen and simply states, that in such situations the pilot (from point 1!) shall take over. A classic catch 22 situation. (look at the MAX disaster)

4. I would like to add another contributing effect: The differences between manufacturer philosophies. Due to rapidly changing numbers of different models in many fleets, pilots get quickly shifted from one model to another at many airlines, incl. EK. Considering points 1 and 2, one can imagine that too big a difference of operations and sops can greatly enhance the problems. Two accidents (B777 in DXB and SFO) reflects this: Pilots trained and long working on Airbus, transitioned to Boeing and in their early line phase screwed up due to huge differences in autothrust/throttle systems.



The remedy to this situation is as obvious as the reluctance to acknowledge it. We will have to live with the regular incident reports that point bluntly to the above.
glofish is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 11:34
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: utah
Age: 65
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tommy Gavin View Post
1000' unstable = GA right?
Nevertheless, ATC in USA is a mixed bag. Some airports are very good and some are piss poor. JFK is the worst. They should send some guys over to LHR or FRA and see how it could be done.
And watch the EDCT’s crank up due to their ‘experience’....
atr-drivr 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.