Brilliant. Is that actually how they word it or is it all lost in the transalation?? :ugh: I guess they expect the capt to send the FO out with a bucket instead??

No wonder the thing took hours to land when the Quantas A180 shat itself out of SINGA. It took those four guys all day to figure out what the frogs were trying to say in the manuals. They deserved the kudos for outstanding performance under the stress of wading through airbus "checklists"... :rolleyes:

It is always useful
 

These kind of failures are rare, hence it is always useful to discuss them.

One of the mayor issues here is the availability of performance related information to the crew. Now, Narita is not high and hot so you do not expect any tire speed limit or Vmbe limitation.

Flight control problems combine adversely with overweight so dumping is a must if the situation is not time critical.

However, even at MLW it remains a high energy approach with a serious chance of floating during flare.

The main goal is not to cause more damage than there already is. Use of longest runway with headwind component and full runway length for deceleration is a must.

Time again I see pilots selecting max auto brake when performing an overweight or high energy approach.

I simply do not understand why you have to blow your tires in a situation like this.

As with the A340 incident in JNB it occurs to me that EK has still not learned their lesson.

Is there any info on what caused the flap problem?

Some questions arise

- Why can't a heavy colossus like that not dump down to MLW in an emergency? Seeing that they are very RWL limited with a little tailwind, such a feature would seem nothing but logical.

- Why not fly around the landscape and burn the extra fuel, as the QF whale did, and land with MLW as to avoid tire damage?

- Why proceed to the gate and have the tires deflate (or worse, explode) there, instead of going to a remote place to wait until they cool down, as apparently on the whale you're not allowed to cool down brakes ..... ?

Hi ex

I just love to make you jump!!

As to the weights, well ,we can all read, thanks anyway, but the questions persist:.

I still wonder why 90t can't be dumped .....

The "explode" thing is exaggerated, sure, but another thing astounds me:

My question again as to why they would not have the whole thing cool down and deflate somewhere else?
Sure enough a disembarkation with tires deflating is a safety hazard!! The whale will move, as will the bridge!

OK, I bow before so much more wisdom and experience on heavies ....

I realise that on a A380 you desperately need 90 tons in emergencies so that the 4 donkeys don't flame out!

Again, I do not have the experience of fuel flows of that magnitude, please accept my apologies for even asking questions about higher spheres.

HI Ex 380,

I repeat, it is not because it is an Airbus that the general principles of high energy approaches is any different then on a Boeing.

The use of MAX autobrake is a big nono unless you select a lower mode during the landing run in order to use the full runway length. This technique is clearly mentioned in the training manual of any Boeing type. Now if Airbus obeys different laws of physics I do not see why this would not apply to an A380.

Flap assym is not a big deal, not even on a WB. No need to blow any tires if you have reverses and dumping available.

But it looks like the design of the A380 fuel dumping system is falling short. It looks like the A380 is unable to land at hot and high airports with that kind of design. If this is the case then once more the B747-400 is much better since you can dump all the way down to 13 tons from all 8 fuel tanks.

Tyre fuse plugs are there to prevent any damage caused by exploding tyres, except for an aborted TO you should never get into a situation like this.

The handling of the situation by the crew was poor and will cost EK a handful of money. If I was the GMFO I would fire them immediately.

Hmm, so the QF crew got criticised for leaving the pax onboard too long with a potential hazard to the pax outside (fuel leak, running engine etc)

Then the EK crew get criticised for NOT keeping them onboard with a potential hazard to the pax outside (hot brakes etc)

Case of can't win no matter what????

The pictures I saw of the pax deplaning, were doing so after the tyres had deflated... IMHO better to get them off in a relatively controlled manner than to keep them onboard in a state of panic and risk things going pear shaped (we all know that 'some' EK pax are not that great at following instructions on basic things like seatbelts) so why would they do what they're told if they think something is wrong outside?

Moderators?
 

WAG forum required

That's Great Pitch up..fire em and the issue is solved. You'd be a perfect fit in EK management. :rolleyes:

Well that goes a long way to explaining the unhinged stream-of-consciousness rants then - I remember being entertained by one of those in person back in the day.

Who knew I was witnessing future internet greatness.

Oh I'm sorry Dropp, didn't realise the forum was restricted to skygods only.

Good luck evacuating your plane by yourself since, apparantly, CC are just WAGS with no valid opinion...

Please explain why it's justified for people who weren't there to lambast the crew for doing what they felt was the best at the time with the information they had?

Wings get over yaself.

Brokenenglish,

Good pick up. Looks like the poor fella is still suffering from anxiety from his "harsh" treatment when in the sandpit.

The Don

Sorry Don, but this continual attitude from 'some' that only pilots are worthy of commenting on middle east AVIATION forums gets little tiring. I had a comment on an incident that involved a team of people yet remarks like 'WAG' regularly come out. (And we wonder why some people have an 'us vs them' mentality' onboard) I could understand if, in fact, I was a wife or gf but I happen to work for the company (unlike some who post here) yet no one seems to comment on their input?

FYI, I do hold aviation qualifications other than being a CC. The skygod comment was aimed at Dropp specifially, not pilots in general, sorry if you found it offensive, wasn wn't meant to be.

I do find it annoying that people get so up on the crew for what they did/didn't do, yet weren't there? I personally know more than one of the crew who was on that flight and by all accounts it was not an easy situation.

Nothing has changed
 

brokenenglish

First of all, it is correct that I was with EK a couple of years ago.

Secondly, I was not fired but resigned, huge difference!

I was part of a group of pilots that revealed basic shortcomings and illegal practices within EK training department. These were forwarded to the audit team installed by HH. All the findings were confirmed by an ICAO audit!

If you want a copy you can get it!

So the only reason why I am no longer there, is because of the British maffia within the training department could not loose face and tried to cover up their mistakes. By the way it is they that got fired, not me.

Unfortunately this was only discovered by the DGCA months after I was gone, I had 3 meetings with them and they acknowledged and recognized that what happened was unfair to say the least. The DGCA was manipulated by the EK GMFO. You will be able to read all this in my book when it comes out.

Now back to the topic of the A380:

Brakes are brakes, doesn't matter if it is an Airbus or a Boeing. If you use the whole runway your brakes will not be as hot. Anyone who disagrees with this will confirm that nothing has changed since the incident with the A340 in JNB. They even managed to land on the shortest runway using autobrakes with a failed anti-skid.

And yes, if I was GMFT at EK things like this would not happen. Pilots that are unfamiliar with the basics would simply not be there.

It is not a difficult job at all, some good flying skills and common sense is all you need.

I am sure you will agree with me that anyone who exposes the safety record or standards of EK will get eliminated. It doesn't matter if they were right or wrong. In this context it is only normal the A380 chaps get fired, that is the way thing work in the Middle East.

But the bottom line is that anyone with a good knowledge of aviation will realize that in Narita there is no reason to blow your tires unless you mishandle the situation.

Anyone who disagrees with this will confirm that nothing has changed since the incident with the A340 in JNB. They even managed to land on the shortest runway using autobrakes with a failed anti-skid.

Interesting comment!

From recollection there was no information available on the A343 wrt tpis at the time, so please do advise how would you have known until after landing that your anti skid did not work? And from a weary memory I recall this was identified during roll out and corrective action taken... Hmmm sounds like a one sided opinion with a lot of bias!?

Shall we re visit why you left again? Witch hunt? Or hadn't the balls to stand your ground? I remember which one!

So... The 380 had a technical issue, made an air return, landed safely, a few tyres melted and now the armchair heroes turn it into a 2 page cat fight?! Where has the big picture thinking gone?

It was a tremendous job by the crew who managed to handle the incident without any major damage to the aircraft or injury to passengers and crew. Landing a 500t jet at over 350 kph is no simple task.

In a manner similar to our QF bretheren would herald; "lucky it was Emirates pilots at the controls, otherwise nobody knows what could've happened" :}

I am not familiar with any Airbii, so ask genuinely; is it possible in the A380 to dump more fuel than this crew did and, thereby, further reduce the landing weight?

I'm certainly not casting any aspersions, nor suggesting any wrongdoing but I'm intrigued to know why the crew decided to land at the weight they did. I expect they had good reason but I don't suppose we'll ever find out the truth and, therefore, we can't learn what they did well and maybe didn't do so well.

No with the fuel they had onboard they could not jettison further, due to the fuel system architecture

Apparently they landed with Max Reverse Thrust no Autobrakes(BTV) and used Reversers down to 60 knots or so....would probably have done the same..using the whole runway length.

Tire Limit speed on the "classic" Airbus is around 195knots...they were not far from that.

High tire temps were going to be an eventuality
 

Landing at 485T or jettisoning to 440T would have resulted in deflated tires either way!

Ke = M * V squared.

The approach speeds for a flapless landing and the high mass of the A380 = brake temperatures > fuse plug limits.

The bonus was that the PAX were deplaned at the gate and easily transported to the terminal.

Arm chair lawyers can argue as much as the like, but the situation would be the same either way.