Emirates emergency landing in JNB
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: MAN
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the magic carpet in Dubai is right.
Will never fly them again. Shocking lack of personnel to make decisions about anything on the ground. Sub-continent people to afraid to tell the Arabs what needed to be done!
Will never fly them again. Shocking lack of personnel to make decisions about anything on the ground. Sub-continent people to afraid to tell the Arabs what needed to be done!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cap56 - it is indeed a superb wing.
Unfortunately you are still waffling. As has been pointed out max tyre speed is 204kts.
The figures I came up with were right out of the abnormal section of the AIRBUS QRH.
It's plain to see that you don't understand too much about the 'bus, so why don't you give us all a break and go and hassle someone else.
Unfortunately you are still waffling. As has been pointed out max tyre speed is 204kts.
The figures I came up with were right out of the abnormal section of the AIRBUS QRH.
It's plain to see that you don't understand too much about the 'bus, so why don't you give us all a break and go and hassle someone else.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a non-pilot ..............
Hello again everybody,
I tried to read most/all of the commentary on this thread and as an outsider (ATC), I must make the following observations.
1. Obviously something went wrong in the departure sequence, and it appears as though it may involve human/training error(s).
2. Most pilots commenting in this thread seem to be of the the opinion that the crew did a good job getting the aircraft back to the ground safely.
3. Most pilots commenting in this thread seem to be of the the opinion that the crew made the correct decision to stay at JHB for the landing.
4. There has been some speculation regarding training issues at emirates (with reference to the departure technique in this case).
Cap56, as an outsider, you really do just look like a trouble making plonker, the problem is that because of that, I will treat any information that you provide on this and other threads as hmm ..... drivel. When others ask you to follow through with your statements,
You just seem to ignore them.
Anyway, this is all just MHO.
Invictus
I tried to read most/all of the commentary on this thread and as an outsider (ATC), I must make the following observations.
1. Obviously something went wrong in the departure sequence, and it appears as though it may involve human/training error(s).
2. Most pilots commenting in this thread seem to be of the the opinion that the crew did a good job getting the aircraft back to the ground safely.
3. Most pilots commenting in this thread seem to be of the the opinion that the crew made the correct decision to stay at JHB for the landing.
4. There has been some speculation regarding training issues at emirates (with reference to the departure technique in this case).
Cap56, as an outsider, you really do just look like a trouble making plonker, the problem is that because of that, I will treat any information that you provide on this and other threads as hmm ..... drivel. When others ask you to follow through with your statements,
Put your money where your mouth is and tell us your professional(?) opinion on where they should have gone and why
Anyway, this is all just MHO.
Invictus
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I as an oily rag as some of you Jet Drivers would call me, have been following this thread with interest since the incident/accident happened. I have been trying to work out and understand some of the many points which have followed with interest. I have been trying to find out what the time interval was before the crew hit the magic button for TOGA, after the aircraft did not come unstuck as planned. I for one as a layman would have hit it straight away, as any extra speed you require in a hurry requires power and engines do not give power instantaneously. I am under the impression that extra speed will normally help you to reach an unstuck state, unless your trim is so far out, that you have had it in any case. I have seen the figure of 17 seconds from the first input until it finally took the lights with it, so would be interested to see the time relation to the extra power applied.
I have read with interest to see if CAP 56 has a big chip on his shoulders or not and if he does talk sense or not? However his last post about tyre bursts, has me beginning to sway to the “not” side of the squabble.
Most main wheel tyres are up into the pressure figures of around 200 psi and above. Yes when a tyre explodes it will be just like a bomb going off, but when was the last time anybody heard of a tyre exploding on an aircraft, other than a maintenance error on the ground. Tyres for as long as I can remember have thermal fuse plugs fitted which lets the pressure out before the big bang. So CAP 56 you should have no problem or worry about putting the gear up. The advantage that you would have in leaving them down is wheel and brake cooling, plus the advantage of burning more fuel to lighten the fuel load. You keep telling us about damage to the wheels, but the crew did not know or why should they believe the wheels were damaged. I have read plenty of reports over the years of aircraft taking out structures on take-off and landing without damage to the bits that dangle. So why should the crew not believe the aircraft gear is intact unless told by ground control and so have full braking available.
I look forward to you comments.
I have read with interest to see if CAP 56 has a big chip on his shoulders or not and if he does talk sense or not? However his last post about tyre bursts, has me beginning to sway to the “not” side of the squabble.
Most main wheel tyres are up into the pressure figures of around 200 psi and above. Yes when a tyre explodes it will be just like a bomb going off, but when was the last time anybody heard of a tyre exploding on an aircraft, other than a maintenance error on the ground. Tyres for as long as I can remember have thermal fuse plugs fitted which lets the pressure out before the big bang. So CAP 56 you should have no problem or worry about putting the gear up. The advantage that you would have in leaving them down is wheel and brake cooling, plus the advantage of burning more fuel to lighten the fuel load. You keep telling us about damage to the wheels, but the crew did not know or why should they believe the wheels were damaged. I have read plenty of reports over the years of aircraft taking out structures on take-off and landing without damage to the bits that dangle. So why should the crew not believe the aircraft gear is intact unless told by ground control and so have full braking available.
I look forward to you comments.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to many of the posts on this subject, Cap 56 has an 'axe to grind' and maybe he does.
Nevertheless, In spite of all of the criticisms levelled at him here, he has maintained his reponses in a most dignified manner and would appear to know much more about the technicalities to back up his argument than most line pilots I know.
Whatever you might think of him as a fellow pilot for 'questioning' the actions of the crew involved, you have to admit that he has backed up his arguments with technical substance that the detractors here appear unable to refute.
You might not like him criticising the actions of the EK crew and those in the sandpit will naturally defend the honour of their fellow crews, but he has put forward some very valid points that you cannot ignore! Furthermore, as Cap says, these are issues that will surface in any AAI that follows, so we shall have to wait and see. You may not appreciate him airing his views in the public domain but he may just be proved right! Best therefore not to argue unless you can shoot him down on the technical issues. Just my 'tupence' worth.
Jack
Nevertheless, In spite of all of the criticisms levelled at him here, he has maintained his reponses in a most dignified manner and would appear to know much more about the technicalities to back up his argument than most line pilots I know.
Whatever you might think of him as a fellow pilot for 'questioning' the actions of the crew involved, you have to admit that he has backed up his arguments with technical substance that the detractors here appear unable to refute.
You might not like him criticising the actions of the EK crew and those in the sandpit will naturally defend the honour of their fellow crews, but he has put forward some very valid points that you cannot ignore! Furthermore, as Cap says, these are issues that will surface in any AAI that follows, so we shall have to wait and see. You may not appreciate him airing his views in the public domain but he may just be proved right! Best therefore not to argue unless you can shoot him down on the technical issues. Just my 'tupence' worth.
Jack
d) Suddenly out of the blue the max tire speed goes up from 195 to 205 kts
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap 56,
Why are you deleting all of you earlier posts. It is impossible to work out what arguement you are trying to develop and starts to look as if you have a different agenda.
As to all the newtonian physics. Obviously before going to the QRH, FOM, FCOM et al, you jump for your schoolboy physics book. It is always much easier to play armchair quarterback having had 2 months to think about the problem don't you think.
So EK have a T/O over run and return for a landing where by the tyres blow due to previous damage. Are there TPIs in the 340-300? What did the crew feel at lift off? Unanswered questions but clearly unimportant before launching into a tirade about there actions.
I didn't see company slagging of this nature after the Quantas over-run or the 300 tail falling off due to extreme use of rudder at an inappropriate time.
Bottom line is that an error was made and they then returned without injuring any passengers and crew. The damaged wheels on return had less to do with the length of the runway than the state of the gear, which was un-known to them at the time.
Cerberus
Why are you deleting all of you earlier posts. It is impossible to work out what arguement you are trying to develop and starts to look as if you have a different agenda.
As to all the newtonian physics. Obviously before going to the QRH, FOM, FCOM et al, you jump for your schoolboy physics book. It is always much easier to play armchair quarterback having had 2 months to think about the problem don't you think.
So EK have a T/O over run and return for a landing where by the tyres blow due to previous damage. Are there TPIs in the 340-300? What did the crew feel at lift off? Unanswered questions but clearly unimportant before launching into a tirade about there actions.
I didn't see company slagging of this nature after the Quantas over-run or the 300 tail falling off due to extreme use of rudder at an inappropriate time.
Bottom line is that an error was made and they then returned without injuring any passengers and crew. The damaged wheels on return had less to do with the length of the runway than the state of the gear, which was un-known to them at the time.
Cerberus
Bird on, his calcs also prove that the runway was long enough, and that the tire speeds were not exceeded. I think he is busy drafting an apology at the moment.
I notice also that he has made no mention of how the crew also had to deal with another non-normal on the landing roll (loss of normal brakes and NWS), but were able to keep the Bus on the tarmac. This seems to prove that their calcs re AC weight and distance required were pretty good, don't you think!
Don
I notice also that he has made no mention of how the crew also had to deal with another non-normal on the landing roll (loss of normal brakes and NWS), but were able to keep the Bus on the tarmac. This seems to prove that their calcs re AC weight and distance required were pretty good, don't you think!
Don
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one coming in from someone who knows sod all about flying other than sitting in one far too often.
It appears that the crew messed up at take off. Not that bad though as the aircraft got airborne and remained airborne until the Capt decided it shouldn't be.
Capt made his decision of where to land and what procedures he should follow.
He landed the aircraft on the runway (better than his take off), all PAX and crew got off safely.
Other than the take off he did it all OK in my books. Some of it may have been luck but I am sure there was plenty of skill and sound judgement that went into it together with his training.
You criticise EK training but perhaps this Capt had plenty of experience on type before going to EK?
The investigation will find out all the details, but until then the Capt has to live with the fact that he fecked up the take off and thank his lucky stars that he got everyone safely back on the ground.
It appears that the crew messed up at take off. Not that bad though as the aircraft got airborne and remained airborne until the Capt decided it shouldn't be.
Capt made his decision of where to land and what procedures he should follow.
He landed the aircraft on the runway (better than his take off), all PAX and crew got off safely.
Other than the take off he did it all OK in my books. Some of it may have been luck but I am sure there was plenty of skill and sound judgement that went into it together with his training.
You criticise EK training but perhaps this Capt had plenty of experience on type before going to EK?
The investigation will find out all the details, but until then the Capt has to live with the fact that he fecked up the take off and thank his lucky stars that he got everyone safely back on the ground.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desert Nomad
So crew messed up but not that bad eh??
That was nearly a major disaster along the lines of the SQ6 Accident at Tapei.
I would question the use of max flex reduction in the first instance and why they were so slow to go to full power.
Certainly the right decision was made to return to JNB to land and perhaps it would have been wiser to have dumped below the MLW of 190 tons in view of the Flap position.
On any runway other than a completely smooth one which is getting exceedingly rare these days I always used Full Power for Take Off as the clattering and bouncing around which occurs on the A340 during the take off roll is most disconcerting and the sooner I can get into the air the happier I feel.
I have never been to JNB in the A340 so do not know the performance details but I was surprised to hear they used Conf 1 + F instead of the usual Flaps 2 Position.During my 4 Years on the A340 I never had an occasion to use Conf 1+F for T/O, maybe it is necessary there?
So crew messed up but not that bad eh??
That was nearly a major disaster along the lines of the SQ6 Accident at Tapei.
I would question the use of max flex reduction in the first instance and why they were so slow to go to full power.
Certainly the right decision was made to return to JNB to land and perhaps it would have been wiser to have dumped below the MLW of 190 tons in view of the Flap position.
On any runway other than a completely smooth one which is getting exceedingly rare these days I always used Full Power for Take Off as the clattering and bouncing around which occurs on the A340 during the take off roll is most disconcerting and the sooner I can get into the air the happier I feel.
I have never been to JNB in the A340 so do not know the performance details but I was surprised to hear they used Conf 1 + F instead of the usual Flaps 2 Position.During my 4 Years on the A340 I never had an occasion to use Conf 1+F for T/O, maybe it is necessary there?
Several people have commented in this thread that because the plane landed without serious damage or injury to crew or passengers that the pilots did a good job. This is not correct IMHO. They may or may not have done well on landing, but since poor performance does not automatically lead to a broken aircraft and dead bodies (as was shown on take-off), the absence of such does not prove good performance.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Infinity and Beyond
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual Inspection??
CAP56
If my memory serves me correctly, it was a night take off (but I stand to be corrected).
If it was you can imagine the R/T at the time:
EK XXX: 'Request undercarriage inspection'
JNB ATC: '????!'
Once again we have no idea whether or not the crew thought of an inspection or not.
It’s the same on an aeroplane, you ask ATC or they tell you.
If it was you can imagine the R/T at the time:
EK XXX: 'Request undercarriage inspection'
JNB ATC: '????!'
Once again we have no idea whether or not the crew thought of an inspection or not.
