|
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. |
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.
|
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. |
when the aircraft initiated the go around at about 1000 feet MSL about 8nm before the runway threshold 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 :O ) |
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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by rat 5
(Post 9895814)
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 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 |
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 ? |
But then again, captains of A380's are not newbies |
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 . 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) |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by RoyHudd
Hard to screw that up, even locals.
Originally Posted by Galaxy Flyer
Hasn't Russia gone over to QNH and feet for altitudes/levels?
|
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? |
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! |
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.
|
There is a problem using QFE in aircraft equipped with EGPWS. It leads to un-warranted activations.
|
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
using QNH in a QFE environment is an error waiting to happen.
|
WK,
EKs EGPWS is calibrated to AMSL- some guys tried to use QFE into DME years ago, with the result that they got a hard GPWS warning. It's not just "bigging up", there are actual reasons for it. |
Well, that's interesting, wizofoz. We never had that problem with EGPWS either in Honeywell or Collins equipped Global 6000 or Challengers. In fact, we had QRH procedures for using QFE. All designed with BBD, the avionics manufacturers and FAA.
One of my C-5 crews nearly CFIT'd in Bishkek. Had to convert millibars to inches, then QFE to QNH and then the altitude conversions. As Bishkek is at 2,000' ish, they couldn't crank down the baros low enough to indicate QFE. Now, the "glass" cockpit avionics can do that. |
I always thought it was a bit strange, galaxy, but it is never the less the case.
|
Originally Posted by Wizofoz
WK,
EKs EGPWS is calibrated to AMSL- some guys tried to use QFE into DME years ago, with the result that they got a hard GPWS warning. It's not just "bigging up", there are actual reasons for it. I'm well aware of how EGPWS is calibrated but thanks for the 'lesson':} Either I was typing gibberish or you don't understand my Queen's English; the 'bigging up' was regarding the unimportant bits which EK like us to spout about! The C-TWO F model is fine as long as we stick to the relevant and important stuff! Such as the need to convert QFE/meters to QNH/feet at UUDD and not discussing the need for something like ice-protection on a CAVOK summer's day! Briefings need to be brief. Unlike the EK Longings!:rolleyes: |
I have not been flying to Russia for couple of years so I am not up-to-date about present situation. But some time ago I found this article:
http://flightservicebureau.org/big-c...moving-to-qnh/ Any progress? |
Sorry to ask but from the discussion above should we summize that the two go around were auto initiated due to some bogus EGPWS warning linked to some confusions about measurement units ?
|
Never heard of "auto initiated" go-arounds. I am not familiar with airbus, but on Boeings there are no auto initiated go-arounds. It can be done on autopilit, but the initiation is done by the pilot.
|
Was this an ILS or NPA? I've had false glide slopes, but they've all been above the real one not below. Is that possible? It was CAVOK, but darkness, so they should have been visible with the runway. If the a/c descended to such low height too early was this a case of WTF is it doing now, and not reacting as we hope most would do, and disconnect and fly the damn thing into a safer place?
I see the primary approach is ILS. The chart has Altitude - M conversion tables, but DME linked in. The approach is 1977'agl at 8.5nm - 1647' at 6.5nm and descend from this at 5nm. So 400' at 8nm, if it was radar to ILS, is astonishing. Does Moscow radar ATC not have a 'low level alert' warning for arriving a/c? If this was a VOR approach does EK or AB SOP's not require a DMA v ALT check during an approach. Is this shades of the AC Halifax incident? If this scenario is true is does seem scary that such a sophisticated a/c, in visual conditions could be at 400' all when it should have been about 1900'. If it was at 1977' and the crew watched and wondered while it descended to 400' is curious. If at 700fpm that takes 2 minutes. That is along time to watch something you should not be happy with. A simple ALT v DME would have alerted you at the first check. The comment that it failed to descend at the correct point on the 2nd approach is also worrying. Is this an SOP mess-up, a mis-understanding of how the system works, a system mess-up? What did they do differently on the 3rd approach? |
You know, all the discussion of altimetry should really be set aside; it takes our eye off the "basic airmanship" ball...
If the aircraft went around from 1000 MSL, and that equated with 400 AGL, then whether they were on QFE, QNH, feet, or metric is a moot point. ANY of those altitudes / settings would still be WAY too low while descending 8 NM out from the threshold. And the SECOND try was also unsuccessful. I have absolutely no idea how the 380 flies, but on approach in the 330 if the VDEV says one thing but a basic mental 3 1/2 to 1 (3 and a half miles to every 1000 feet left to lose) is significantly different, it is very likely that the VDEV is wrong / misprogrammed. What was in these guys' FMS, and does Emirates give you a lobotomy when they put you thru Airbus school? |
Originally Posted by sleeper
(Post 9896509)
Never heard of "auto initiated" go-arounds. I am not familiar with airbus, but on Boeings there are no auto initiated go-arounds. It can be done on autopilit, but the initiation is done by the pilot.
|
Glad to read it - I guess that the redaction of the initial article is somewhat lacking...
|
As other have mentioned already, QFE / meters is manageable but represents a big threat indeed. Historically several airlines have had their own share of troubles with Russian altimetry system so it still amazes me that nothing is done to mitigate this very simple risk. How many Tupolev and Ilyushin are still flying around (especially in and out Moscow) compared to Boeing and Airbus "Qnh only" airplanes ?
|
EK-131 on 12/09 also went around and EK-131 of 13/09 diverted to OSF/UUMO
:confused: |
|
Originally Posted by gearlever
(Post 9896687)
EK-131 of 13/09 diverted to OSF/UUMO
:confused: |
!!!!
Guys - it is really shocking what most of you are writing here - only excuse for it, is if you have not been back to Russia recently. :ugh::
As one poster already stated, Russia has changed the Rules and exclusively uses QNH altimetery below Transition Level and this has been in effect since Feb 2017. It is no longer a QFE environment. Just have a look at your charts: No more conversion tables and need to work out meteres, as there are no longer clearances issued in meteres. Just set the given QNH after TL fly in feet and that's it. |
I fly to UUEE every month - yes, the conversion tables are still part of the charts (Lido), the atc sometimes gives you QNH sometimes not, below TL they always give you height.
|
Hi,
good point but the transition started in Feb this year with ULLI and will slowly keep going till hopefully the whole area is QNH. Haven't flown there for a while now so I do not know what the story is (and do not have the charts right here to check). As the prev poster mentioned it appears that You still work on QFE. |
Sonicbum is right.
ULLI is the only airport in Russia which uses QNH. And yes. All the charts still have QFE and QNH values given. It is a testing phase. All others work with QFE but more and more give you QNH if you ask them. Even RNAV approaches are possible on a few airports if you ask for it. I presume, flying and out of Russia about 20 times a month this was just a missinterpretation of the numbers on the charts. Flying on QNH and reading the QFE values or vice versa. The biggest problem is that you fly down to FL50 on QNH and then you have to transition to QFE. Close to ground, stress and "out of a sudden" a different altitude reading procedure/measurement. Also the EGWPS does will not be triggered if you dont touch the altitude numbers in the FMS, like changing the airport elevation to 0 just your altimeter will show 0 upon landing. Plus, you need to set all other values in the FMS to QNH. Never use QFE in the FMS |
Ok I'm still a bit confused here.
Are we speaking of an EK 380 having two go arounds while landing in Moscow Domodedovo, presumably because the approach was botched due to crew error (incorrect altitude settings (ie QNH vs QHE)) ? Certainly doesn't reflect positively on said crew but is it such a huge deal ? Or am I missing something ? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.