Emirates emergency landing in JNB
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In the oil wealth of sand dunes
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigelondraft,
Small correction to your first number 1 sentence. I think you have used PNF instead of PF. Why would the PNF be applying correct aileron when he isn't even flying? PNF
Just a slip of the fingers on the keyboard I suppose.
planecrazi-
A340 typed
Small correction to your first number 1 sentence. I think you have used PNF instead of PF. Why would the PNF be applying correct aileron when he isn't even flying? PNF
Just a slip of the fingers on the keyboard I suppose.
planecrazi-
A340 typed
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give it a rest Cap - I've flown with that particular skipper a few times previously and he's very capable, experienced on the 'bus and very professional.
It's so nice to keep hearing your poncy comments over and over again like a stuck record
I don't think.
If you have a bone to pick I suggest you give Knowles a visit somewhere in southern France.......
It's so nice to keep hearing your poncy comments over and over again like a stuck record
I don't think.If you have a bone to pick I suggest you give Knowles a visit somewhere in southern France.......
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap 56
My dear learned fool - if you think ever possibly think me as not "professional" then you are very much mistaken.
Hindsight as to what happened that night in Jo'burg is not something that the unfortunate crew had the benefit of.
Obviously you sitting there at your keyboard with gentle music playing in the background, and time to rehash things gives a very different scenario. Well, all I can say is go back to your mental simulator and be a little hero.
You are very anti EK - that's your perogative (or should I use small words so that you can understand them?), but don't bash a crew you don't know. YOU WERE NOT THERE so BUTT OUT
My dear learned fool - if you think ever possibly think me as not "professional" then you are very much mistaken.
Hindsight as to what happened that night in Jo'burg is not something that the unfortunate crew had the benefit of.
Obviously you sitting there at your keyboard with gentle music playing in the background, and time to rehash things gives a very different scenario. Well, all I can say is go back to your mental simulator and be a little hero.
You are very anti EK - that's your perogative (or should I use small words so that you can understand them?), but don't bash a crew you don't know. YOU WERE NOT THERE so BUTT OUT
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your opinion of professional may not be that of everybody else
You are wrong.
I am not defending EK at all - try re- reading my last post. I am defending the crew against your tirade of who,what,where and how.
How do you KNOW you would have done something different that night if you weren't there!! You don't know and you CAN'T KNOW. You weren't in the front row with the tight sphincter!!
I have been told some pretty stupid things by various "trainers" from time to time, it happens - get used to it in this business.
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hilton, Sheraton or Marriott
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. It was an unreasonable decision to return to that field. It was clear that in doing so, the crew would create another emergency.
They got themselves into a whole lot of trouble but they did a fine job from there. Landing at any field with the flaps jammed at take-off setting and a number of the wheels blown & then stopping on the runway is a good job.
You've just blown any cred you had. Go get a life bud.
4HP
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: As hot as hell, but lots more fun
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap,
as a layperson (so go gently), I feel the need to ask a few questions regarding your last post.
Are you suggesting that under the circumstances, they should've landed elsewhere? Also, are you intimating that a 4400m runway would've restricted their landing performance in any way?
If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, I wouldn't hold my breath for a reply from the SA CAA....
P.S. May I suggest a vacation to East Anglia - I hear they have excellent axe-grinding classes there...
as a layperson (so go gently), I feel the need to ask a few questions regarding your last post.
Are you suggesting that under the circumstances, they should've landed elsewhere? Also, are you intimating that a 4400m runway would've restricted their landing performance in any way?
If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, I wouldn't hold my breath for a reply from the SA CAA....
P.S. May I suggest a vacation to East Anglia - I hear they have excellent axe-grinding classes there...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: As hot as hell, but lots more fun
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Cap,
Again, speaking only as a person who has access to a SonyPlaystation 2 game.
Am I correct in suggesting that the 1000ft increment above SL for landing distance on a 340 equates to approx 3% increase in landing distance? If so, then 8000ft translates to a 24% increase.
Hardly substantive evidence when considering you only need about 2800m to stop in landing config.
I'm guessing then, in the situation they found themselves in, i.e. conf 1, they would've calculated that they had about half a kilometre to spare...
Wake up. Smell the coffee. Address the facts. Get a semblance of an exsistance. Reapply.
Again, speaking only as a person who has access to a SonyPlaystation 2 game.
Am I correct in suggesting that the 1000ft increment above SL for landing distance on a 340 equates to approx 3% increase in landing distance? If so, then 8000ft translates to a 24% increase.
Hardly substantive evidence when considering you only need about 2800m to stop in landing config.
I'm guessing then, in the situation they found themselves in, i.e. conf 1, they would've calculated that they had about half a kilometre to spare...
Wake up. Smell the coffee. Address the facts. Get a semblance of an exsistance. Reapply.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap 56
Put your money where your mouth is and tell us your professional(?) opinion on where they should have gone and why.
What other emergency are you referring to?
Personally, I set the stick position using the cross as a loose reference to initiate the rotation while looking out and count to 5.
The CFM56 works hard in JNB and gets hot, using TOGA can cause other probs like overtemp during the roll. Flex works fine, knock a few degrees off if you feel the need.
H-D
Put your money where your mouth is and tell us your professional(?) opinion on where they should have gone and why.
What other emergency are you referring to?
Personally, I set the stick position using the cross as a loose reference to initiate the rotation while looking out and count to 5.
The CFM56 works hard in JNB and gets hot, using TOGA can cause other probs like overtemp during the roll. Flex works fine, knock a few degrees off if you feel the need.
H-D
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the comfy chair.
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just flew out of Joburg recently (in a 343, no less), and I can tell you that the choices for an alternate are scarce to almost none, especially with an aircraft with stuck flaps. Situational thinking, especially with the pilots in the case that they were in, I think the only choice would have been to go back to Joburg.
The other choices available to the crew is quite daunting, to say the least. Bloemfontein is out of the question, almost the same altitude as Joburg with shorter runways. Durban is at 25ft AMSL, but the runway is just over half as long as 03L/21R at Joburg. Neither are an online EK port, with emergency services which are probably not going to handle an aircraft the size of a 343.
Then you look at a place like Cape Town, which is possibly the only alternative which makes sense. However, it's like throwing apples and oranges, the chances of the aircraft making it that far, without knowing exactly what shape the aircraft is in, is probably not a good deal. I'd rather dump fuel, stay within the vincinity of JNB in case something goes dramatically wrong, and hope for the best.
In the end, the landing was made, and everyone was safe. Was it the right choice? Hindsight is 20/20, and unless if you were in the cockpit, I highly doubt anyone can give the correct answer in the comfort of their own home.
The other choices available to the crew is quite daunting, to say the least. Bloemfontein is out of the question, almost the same altitude as Joburg with shorter runways. Durban is at 25ft AMSL, but the runway is just over half as long as 03L/21R at Joburg. Neither are an online EK port, with emergency services which are probably not going to handle an aircraft the size of a 343.
Then you look at a place like Cape Town, which is possibly the only alternative which makes sense. However, it's like throwing apples and oranges, the chances of the aircraft making it that far, without knowing exactly what shape the aircraft is in, is probably not a good deal. I'd rather dump fuel, stay within the vincinity of JNB in case something goes dramatically wrong, and hope for the best.
In the end, the landing was made, and everyone was safe. Was it the right choice? Hindsight is 20/20, and unless if you were in the cockpit, I highly doubt anyone can give the correct answer in the comfort of their own home.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagel, you're not quite correct.
RFF at FABL and FADN are both able to deal with with B744 sized aircraft. BA and SAA both have scheduled services into FADN and B744 base training is conducted at FABL from time to time.
Don't lose sight of the fact that SAA has a sophisticated infrastructure at both airports, and operates A342's, A343's and A346's.
There is also FAWK, abeit a military field, most carriers should have permits to land there should the need arise. FAWK is 1000 ft lower than FAJS and the longest R/W is 11000' vs 13000' at JNB.
RFF at FABL and FADN are both able to deal with with B744 sized aircraft. BA and SAA both have scheduled services into FADN and B744 base training is conducted at FABL from time to time.
Don't lose sight of the fact that SAA has a sophisticated infrastructure at both airports, and operates A342's, A343's and A346's.
There is also FAWK, abeit a military field, most carriers should have permits to land there should the need arise. FAWK is 1000 ft lower than FAJS and the longest R/W is 11000' vs 13000' at JNB.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: As hot as hell, but lots more fun
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Cap 56,
To reiterate what helen-d asked: please tell us specifically where you would have diverted to, given the circumstances that afternoon, i.e. flaps stuck, unsure of aircraft's condition, etc.
But be forewarned: whatever you say can and probably will be used against you. The point is that you have had weeks to mull over different scenarios from your armchair and I guarantee you others will still pick holes in any solution you come up with.
I'm guessing you already know this, hence the lack of any specifics from your side thus far.
To reiterate what helen-d asked: please tell us specifically where you would have diverted to, given the circumstances that afternoon, i.e. flaps stuck, unsure of aircraft's condition, etc.
But be forewarned: whatever you say can and probably will be used against you. The point is that you have had weeks to mull over different scenarios from your armchair and I guarantee you others will still pick holes in any solution you come up with.
I'm guessing you already know this, hence the lack of any specifics from your side thus far.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Infinity and Beyond
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 56
Quote:
Facts:
1. I do not see why the crew would use another Take Off technique on that particular night.
That is not a proven fact: do you know that the crew used a different technique to the one they were taught? Please bear in mind that the training was geared to the A340-500 and so they might have used what they deemed to be the correct technique.
Quote:
2. It was an unreasonable decision to return to that field. It was clear that in doing so, the crew would create another emergency.
So where, in your mind, should the crew have gone under the circumstances? And what was the other emergency they would have created?
It has been said that 3 tyres burst on take off, but did the crew know? The ECAM is not fitted with tyre pressure indications on these aircraft so how would they have known?
I agree that, ON HINDSIGHT, dumping fuel to a lower weight may have been prudent, but again do we KNOW what other factors were involved? No, unless you were there that evening.
While there maybe some factors in the training at Emirates which contributed to the accident, I don't think you, with your seemingly prejudiced opinion of the company, are in a position to FAIRLY criticise the event of that evening.
PS: Having re-read some of the preceeding posts, we all wait with eager anticipation to your solution.
Quote:
Facts:
1. I do not see why the crew would use another Take Off technique on that particular night.
That is not a proven fact: do you know that the crew used a different technique to the one they were taught? Please bear in mind that the training was geared to the A340-500 and so they might have used what they deemed to be the correct technique.
Quote:
2. It was an unreasonable decision to return to that field. It was clear that in doing so, the crew would create another emergency.
So where, in your mind, should the crew have gone under the circumstances? And what was the other emergency they would have created?
It has been said that 3 tyres burst on take off, but did the crew know? The ECAM is not fitted with tyre pressure indications on these aircraft so how would they have known?
I agree that, ON HINDSIGHT, dumping fuel to a lower weight may have been prudent, but again do we KNOW what other factors were involved? No, unless you were there that evening.
While there maybe some factors in the training at Emirates which contributed to the accident, I don't think you, with your seemingly prejudiced opinion of the company, are in a position to FAIRLY criticise the event of that evening.
PS: Having re-read some of the preceeding posts, we all wait with eager anticipation to your solution.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: home
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap 56, The Rocket-Scientist-who-had-lots-of-time-to-think-about-it-from-the-comfort-of-his-armchair-after-all-the-information-was-clarified is making a big deal out of nothing.
Is stopping 150 metres from the end of the runway not sufficient, especially considering that they lost normal braking at 70kts.? I would have been happy to stop 10 metres from the end, just enough for a push-back truck to squeeze through and tow the aircraft off the runway. In fact, since this is not a safety-orientated reason, even 10 millimetres would have been enough.
Some are saying that the crew could have dumped more fuel.
Granted. But remember that
- The aircraft came to a stop ON THE TARMAC.
- Nobody was hurt.
- Apart from the blown tires, no further damage was caused to the aircraft during the landing run.
So what's the problem????????
As I said before, I think the crew did a good job. Would be happy to pax with them anyday.
Now I'm sure CAP 56 will reply with some intelligent-sounding-with-the-impression-that-it's-God's-gift-to-aviation-talking-but-actually-pointless-beating-about-the-bush post.
While he refers to "The Oxford Concise Book of Bull**** Speeches" to prepare his post, I'm off to eat my spaghetti al pesto. Definitely more interesting than Cap 56's drivel.
Is stopping 150 metres from the end of the runway not sufficient, especially considering that they lost normal braking at 70kts.? I would have been happy to stop 10 metres from the end, just enough for a push-back truck to squeeze through and tow the aircraft off the runway. In fact, since this is not a safety-orientated reason, even 10 millimetres would have been enough.
Some are saying that the crew could have dumped more fuel.
Granted. But remember that
- The aircraft came to a stop ON THE TARMAC.
- Nobody was hurt.
- Apart from the blown tires, no further damage was caused to the aircraft during the landing run.
So what's the problem????????
As I said before, I think the crew did a good job. Would be happy to pax with them anyday.
Now I'm sure CAP 56 will reply with some intelligent-sounding-with-the-impression-that-it's-God's-gift-to-aviation-talking-but-actually-pointless-beating-about-the-bush post.
While he refers to "The Oxford Concise Book of Bull**** Speeches" to prepare his post, I'm off to eat my spaghetti al pesto. Definitely more interesting than Cap 56's drivel.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cap56 - you just haven't got it have you chum.
Biggest chips on shoulders I think I've ever heard of!!!
Go back to your microsoft flightsim and happy pretending.
Biggest chips on shoulders I think I've ever heard of!!!
Go back to your microsoft flightsim and happy pretending.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..................CAP56
We still await your chosen diversion airfield. 
Given the set of circumstances the crew did a fine job. QED
The implication is that you could do better.
I hope you never have the opportunity to test your assertion.
Given the set of circumstances the crew did a fine job. QED
The implication is that you could do better.
I hope you never have the opportunity to test your assertion.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crap 56,
please define when a take off alt is required..... bearing in mind WX, Fire cover and rwy lenght for over weight considerations. Then PLEASE with your vast knowledge tell me considering the aircraft was within structural limits why you would dump more fuel and there by useing up fuel that may be required in the event of a go around and divert.... ohhh you didnt think that far ahead I see!!
The aircraft landed on a rwy which was sufficently long and no speed was exceeded on touch down. As for you earlier statement on the USE of reverse thrust as a stopping factor, then please tell me how much thrust is created below 100 knots with all 4 cfm engines at full reverse.....
If you were to check the landing distance required for normal and then abnormal for the elevation required you will see that no more than 2400 meters are required (rounded figure as I couldnt be bothered for you) and check available rwy lenght ...... is it even close??? NOPE!!
Really, I think you are talking out your arse, fly away from an exellent airport with all the cover and support to an unknown airfield with little or no support and with an aircraft that has been damaged...... I would worry about your decision making ability, not theirs.......
P.S. Under JAR a return alt is only required if the departure field is outside limits for an immediate return....i.e. wx or lenght. (stand to be corrected)
please define when a take off alt is required..... bearing in mind WX, Fire cover and rwy lenght for over weight considerations. Then PLEASE with your vast knowledge tell me considering the aircraft was within structural limits why you would dump more fuel and there by useing up fuel that may be required in the event of a go around and divert.... ohhh you didnt think that far ahead I see!!
The aircraft landed on a rwy which was sufficently long and no speed was exceeded on touch down. As for you earlier statement on the USE of reverse thrust as a stopping factor, then please tell me how much thrust is created below 100 knots with all 4 cfm engines at full reverse.....
If you were to check the landing distance required for normal and then abnormal for the elevation required you will see that no more than 2400 meters are required (rounded figure as I couldnt be bothered for you) and check available rwy lenght ...... is it even close??? NOPE!!
Really, I think you are talking out your arse, fly away from an exellent airport with all the cover and support to an unknown airfield with little or no support and with an aircraft that has been damaged...... I would worry about your decision making ability, not theirs.......
P.S. Under JAR a return alt is only required if the departure field is outside limits for an immediate return....i.e. wx or lenght. (stand to be corrected)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just looking through the A340-300 QRH. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
MLW is 190.0tonnes
With config set at 1+F (used for the takeoff), from page 2.41 and from the S/F fault section I get flap lever position 2 for landing, delta Vref Appr. speed increment of 10 knots and multiply dry runway landing distance by 1.2.
So, from page 2.40, Abnormal/Emergency config (with delta Vref) at 190.0 tonnes Vref(=Vls config full)= 138 knots.
Add the 10 knot increment plus wind correction and that is the speed that goes into the MCDU PERF APPR PAGE. = 148 KNOTS.
Even with increased TAS it is not approaching anywhere near the tyre limiting speed. Consider that Vr is commonly much higher than 148 knots- yes cap56, I have flown the A343 in and out of JNB myself a couple of times.
Going to the Abnormal procedures page 2.43 it says that LDG DIST factors have to be applied to the actual "LANDING DISTANCE WITHOUT AUTOBRAKE-CONFIGURATION FULL (4.03).
I turn to that now, and at 190.0 tonnes on a dry runway the distance is 1160 metres. Adding the correction per 1000' above sea level (+3%) - call it 40 metres to be generous to you - makes 1400 metres. Now multiply by the 1.2 factor makes 1680 metres. Hardly 4400 metres I think. By the way these figures DON'T assume use of reverse thrust.
If you want to combine the increment for failure of normal brakes, that's a further 1.1 distance increment or 1.32 total, SO, 1.32 X 1400 metres = 1848 metres, again, hardly limiting.......
By the way there is no speed increment for normal brake failure.
Over to you.
MLW is 190.0tonnes
With config set at 1+F (used for the takeoff), from page 2.41 and from the S/F fault section I get flap lever position 2 for landing, delta Vref Appr. speed increment of 10 knots and multiply dry runway landing distance by 1.2.
So, from page 2.40, Abnormal/Emergency config (with delta Vref) at 190.0 tonnes Vref(=Vls config full)= 138 knots.
Add the 10 knot increment plus wind correction and that is the speed that goes into the MCDU PERF APPR PAGE. = 148 KNOTS.
Even with increased TAS it is not approaching anywhere near the tyre limiting speed. Consider that Vr is commonly much higher than 148 knots- yes cap56, I have flown the A343 in and out of JNB myself a couple of times.
Going to the Abnormal procedures page 2.43 it says that LDG DIST factors have to be applied to the actual "LANDING DISTANCE WITHOUT AUTOBRAKE-CONFIGURATION FULL (4.03).
I turn to that now, and at 190.0 tonnes on a dry runway the distance is 1160 metres. Adding the correction per 1000' above sea level (+3%) - call it 40 metres to be generous to you - makes 1400 metres. Now multiply by the 1.2 factor makes 1680 metres. Hardly 4400 metres I think. By the way these figures DON'T assume use of reverse thrust.
If you want to combine the increment for failure of normal brakes, that's a further 1.1 distance increment or 1.32 total, SO, 1.32 X 1400 metres = 1848 metres, again, hardly limiting.......
By the way there is no speed increment for normal brake failure.
Over to you.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the comfy chair.
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagel, you're not quite correct.
RFF at FABL and FADN are both able to deal with with B744 sized aircraft. BA and SAA both have scheduled services into FADN and B744 base training is conducted at FABL from time to time.
Don't lose sight of the fact that SAA has a sophisticated infrastructure at both airports, and operates A342's, A343's and A346's.
There is also FAWK, abeit a military field, most carriers should have permits to land there should the need arise. FAWK is 1000 ft lower than FAJS and the longest R/W is 11000' vs 13000' at JNB.
RFF at FABL and FADN are both able to deal with with B744 sized aircraft. BA and SAA both have scheduled services into FADN and B744 base training is conducted at FABL from time to time.
Don't lose sight of the fact that SAA has a sophisticated infrastructure at both airports, and operates A342's, A343's and A346's.
There is also FAWK, abeit a military field, most carriers should have permits to land there should the need arise. FAWK is 1000 ft lower than FAJS and the longest R/W is 11000' vs 13000' at JNB.
In fact, I know FABL and FADN can handle the aircraft in a situation, because they are nominated alternates in the flight plan. That I can rest assured of.
But to someone like me, who is unfamiliar with South African aviation (and none of this is in the company literature provided, except for basic airfield information), these are all bonus info that, for most intents and purposes, I will not be thinking of using in a situation like this one. Right or wrong, that's just my opinion.
To me, FABL and FADN can be used as takeoff alternates provided I cannot return to the airfield because it's shut due to a crash or weather or whatnot. But then, I would have to wonder myself whether or not FABL or FADN is realistically a better alternate to go to than Joburg. FAJS does have a 14490' runway, and no matter how high your speed is or how high the density alt is, you will not need 14490' of runway to stop a 343 in most situations. The only consideration in this matter is the fact that some tires may burst. But when the aircraft is in such an unknown state, I really wouldn't want to venture too far from JNB, in case if it's more than just 'stuck flaps'.
That's all I'm trying to say, really. Though I'm sure many others would have a totally different opinion, or have hit on something that I overlooked.
Which is good, actually, because as pilots, we should all learn from incidents like these.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have just read the whole forum on this issue. Goodness, talk about loosing the plot ! Cap 56 appears to be using this is as a cause to slag EK, however can see he has a grudge and fair enough and his views are interesting. However, give the crew a break ! Maybe there was a slight balls up....but at least they sorted it. On the whole...........how often do you see Emirates making the headlnes due to mechanical/operational issues? Not often is it? But then again........a lot of things get pushed under the magic carpet in Dubai...