Emirates emergency landing in JNB
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Croydon
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not know the facts but the airbus trim is not like the boing just put it in the green band and ok. On our a/c though a wrong weight by 4 tonnes would trigger a prompt to check GW as the computer would sense that it is not correct
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse my being way out of touch, but didn't we used to give full thrust until after "weight off wheels"?
Eighter you go TOGA which means full take off thrust (there is no fire wall on the Airbus) or you go one detent lower, which is called Flex/MCT. In this position FADECs give as much thrust as selected on the take off performance page on the FMGS (FMS).
hth
Incidents such as this can happen to anyone / anywhere / anytime. In the long term let us all take time to learn from the investigation; a successful landing such as this should have many positive aspects for everyone.
In the short term the operator should on congratulated on the positive safety culture and open and honest reporting. In return for the valuable heads up, we in the industry should be supporting the crew and operator, defending them from the trials of modern journalism and a punitive society.
Well done all round, no need for any more speculation, I will wait for the facts.
--------------------
Unless specifically authorized everything else is forbidden.
In the short term the operator should on congratulated on the positive safety culture and open and honest reporting. In return for the valuable heads up, we in the industry should be supporting the crew and operator, defending them from the trials of modern journalism and a punitive society.
Well done all round, no need for any more speculation, I will wait for the facts.
--------------------
Unless specifically authorized everything else is forbidden.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kid Gloves
It's going to be interesting to see how politically correct all findings are to be presented once determined. Especially considering that it will likely take quite some time, to calm down and hopefully, to receed into vagueness......
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani,
quote---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is very simple: A320/330/340 have a sophisticated system to calculate weights in flight derived from angle of attack calculations. Unless those computers were at fault (but this is very unlikely since the computers are all independant). The inflight weight calculation would not have prevented the accident but will be very handy to find out the problem.
As all the insiders here already found out that it was a loading problem, everything's clear. It could also have been a wrong input to the performance page (too high flex temperature setting) or just wrong reading out of the performance book (or laptop, whatever they use in Emirates).
unqoute------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you allude to is done on the A340s by a part of the FMGEC - however, to my understanding only as a monitor in normal conditions for what the FCMCs come up with (based on initilization of ZFW and ZFWCG plus current fuel quantity information). Parameters for the FMGECs are AOA, Ma-number, altitude, THS position and... I forgot the other parameters.
I seriously doubt that the calculated weight/CG values will help in this case. I guess any value calculated by the FMGEC would have to be inaccurate as there wasnīt a long segment of undisturbed flight (Iīd rule out the jettison segment as it certainly messes up the calculation). Secondly, I am pretty sure - unless proven otherwise, of course! - that none of the values calculated by the FMGECs over time is stored anywhere. In fact, even the INIT values are dumped at...hmm... last engine s/d I think.
Finally, itīs interesting to see that MSN 166 is still a trouble-maker! (yes, I know, you canīt blame it on the airframe itself... *g*).
Cheers,
J.V.
quote---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is very simple: A320/330/340 have a sophisticated system to calculate weights in flight derived from angle of attack calculations. Unless those computers were at fault (but this is very unlikely since the computers are all independant). The inflight weight calculation would not have prevented the accident but will be very handy to find out the problem.
As all the insiders here already found out that it was a loading problem, everything's clear. It could also have been a wrong input to the performance page (too high flex temperature setting) or just wrong reading out of the performance book (or laptop, whatever they use in Emirates).
unqoute------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you allude to is done on the A340s by a part of the FMGEC - however, to my understanding only as a monitor in normal conditions for what the FCMCs come up with (based on initilization of ZFW and ZFWCG plus current fuel quantity information). Parameters for the FMGECs are AOA, Ma-number, altitude, THS position and... I forgot the other parameters.
I seriously doubt that the calculated weight/CG values will help in this case. I guess any value calculated by the FMGEC would have to be inaccurate as there wasnīt a long segment of undisturbed flight (Iīd rule out the jettison segment as it certainly messes up the calculation). Secondly, I am pretty sure - unless proven otherwise, of course! - that none of the values calculated by the FMGECs over time is stored anywhere. In fact, even the INIT values are dumped at...hmm... last engine s/d I think.
Finally, itīs interesting to see that MSN 166 is still a trouble-maker! (yes, I know, you canīt blame it on the airframe itself... *g*).
Cheers,
J.V.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has to be the first time Murphy's Law has worked in someones favour. I say this because only one RWY at JNB will allow for an overrun and that is RWY 21R, which was the RWY in use that night. 21L would've put them through a highway and into a residential suburb, 03L would've put them through a main road and into an Industrial area, and 03R would've seen them drop down an embankment and into a residential area. The prevailing RWY for deps at JNB is 03L. So I guess thanks to Murph, and great work by the crew.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: on the move again...
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick point, and not to divert attention away from what seems to be a good job by the crew, and also not to start an 'anti-A340-200/300 discussion', but as regular pax on the a/c I do have to say that I've always found those CFM engines on the 340 to be very 'tinny' and much akin to hair dryers.
Wouldn't surprise me if report indicates that JNB's highish altitude combined with tinny engines and less than max power selected by a/c's computer and load problems are significant cause?
Hopefully report will also say 'good save by the crew'.
(PS - Skipper's name quoted in the press cutting on page 1 as 'Sophie' - most on this thread referring to 'her' as a 'him' - any reason?)
Wouldn't surprise me if report indicates that JNB's highish altitude combined with tinny engines and less than max power selected by a/c's computer and load problems are significant cause?
Hopefully report will also say 'good save by the crew'.
(PS - Skipper's name quoted in the press cutting on page 1 as 'Sophie' - most on this thread referring to 'her' as a 'him' - any reason?)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Sophie
Skipper's name quoted in the press cutting on page 1 as 'Sophie' - most on this thread referring to 'her' as a 'him' - any reason?
It is possible that the Capt Sophie reffered to in the origional press report was actually an Airport Official (Police, Security, Armed Forces........... or something like that)
I also did a double-take when I first read the article....
Paxing All Over The World
(non pilot speaking) If the loadsheet was wrong, it would not be altogether surprising. A close relative of mine who is a Cpt in Southern Africa and uses JNB frequently, albeit on smaller a/c, tells me that he has had to tell the ramp crew to remove bags/freight many times.
The loaders sometimes think that, because the hold has more space it can take more stuff. Unfortunately, stuff has mass.
The loaders sometimes think that, because the hold has more space it can take more stuff. Unfortunately, stuff has mass.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that pilots do a lot of training when it comes to engine fires, loss of hydraulics, decompressions, flame outs etc. All of these things happen when they are airborn most of the time .
But do they get enough training on what happens when they pull back on the stick on take-off and nothing happens, after V1, as just happened to Emirates in JNB last week?
What should the first reaction be?
Should runways compensate for such happennings?
But do they get enough training on what happens when they pull back on the stick on take-off and nothing happens, after V1, as just happened to Emirates in JNB last week?
What should the first reaction be?
Should runways compensate for such happennings?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loungelizard
What on earth prompts a reaction like that?
Whether the crew/Company screwed up will be a matter of historical record one way or the other - it's happened.
It was obviously terrifying for all involved and God forbid any of us find ourselves in that position.
Memories of a VERY heavy DC10 trying to get airborne from Male to LGW at 32C springs to mind . There but for the grace of big G . . .
Had we f*****d up, (even if they did) I wouldn't have expected someone to gloat like you are doing.
Did Emirates sack you? Or couldn't you get the job?
I recommend psychotherapy.
What on earth prompts a reaction like that?
Whether the crew/Company screwed up will be a matter of historical record one way or the other - it's happened.
It was obviously terrifying for all involved and God forbid any of us find ourselves in that position.
Memories of a VERY heavy DC10 trying to get airborne from Male to LGW at 32C springs to mind . There but for the grace of big G . . .
Had we f*****d up, (even if they did) I wouldn't have expected someone to gloat like you are doing.
Did Emirates sack you? Or couldn't you get the job?
I recommend psychotherapy.
Invictus asked:
<<Are there any aircraft in the world that have "scales" (not the fishy type) built in to the aircraft to check the weight of an aircraft?>>
Yes, (some) B747 freighters have weight and balance computers which sense undercarriage load.
. . and, before you ask, the only reason I can think of why all big jets (say B737 up) don't have them is, you guessed it again, $$$
On another thread aagg asked if we receive training in severe mistrimmed take-off. I've never received such training although most professional pilots do give some thought to the problem e.g. stop or go (you're above V1), use the stab trim and, if airborne, split the flaps on alternate but any way you are in serious doo doo.
On a freighter one can have a stroll along the main deck (if it isn't totally obstructed) and spot, say, a load of steel or an engine at the end instead of in the middle (and organic peroxides on top of flammables
) but it is well nigh impossible to monitor what's going in the underfloor stowage.
<<Are there any aircraft in the world that have "scales" (not the fishy type) built in to the aircraft to check the weight of an aircraft?>>
Yes, (some) B747 freighters have weight and balance computers which sense undercarriage load.
. . and, before you ask, the only reason I can think of why all big jets (say B737 up) don't have them is, you guessed it again, $$$
On another thread aagg asked if we receive training in severe mistrimmed take-off. I've never received such training although most professional pilots do give some thought to the problem e.g. stop or go (you're above V1), use the stab trim and, if airborne, split the flaps on alternate but any way you are in serious doo doo.
On a freighter one can have a stroll along the main deck (if it isn't totally obstructed) and spot, say, a load of steel or an engine at the end instead of in the middle (and organic peroxides on top of flammables
) but it is well nigh impossible to monitor what's going in the underfloor stowage.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: STUARTFIELD,ABERDEEN,SCOTLAND
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re on board weight and balance
I seem to remember that when Gulf Air first got the Tristar there was an on board weight and balance computer, probably derived from the Lockheed C5. The aircraft were then on the UK register and the CAA (remember them) would not let the crews use the on board system because it seldom agreed with the load sheet, now there's a surprise! It was removed from the aircraft, together with the ground run monitor, which was a wonderful device for proving that you had actually touched down at the correct point on the runway for the scheduled landing distance. Having had a close look at the far end of the runway at Montego Bay from the office window in a 757, because I had made a 10 tonne error in the loadsheet AUW and thus selected a reduced EPR somewhat less than required, I know how the Emirates crew must have felt. They have all my good wishes and congratulations for a nasty situation well recovered whoever caused it. As someone already said,"there but for the grace of God go I" As for manual load sheet calculations are you all still using them or are they computerised, they always used to be computerised at most out stations when I was with Air 2000 and we certainly had a very simple arithmetical (ie accurate) method of producing load sheets and calculating take off data which was far superior to the Airbus and Boeing way with all those funny diagonal lines and odd graphs which I never could understand.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: THE BIG SUNNY SANDPIT
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick post on the subject of load control and ground dispatch functions for any of you who don't quite know what goes on.
Firstly a load controller works out how to load an aircraft so that the CofG is within the limits. This is done several hours before departure and is based on booked figures.
They then send a written instruction called a 'loading instruction / report' to the loaders, this says exactly what should be loaded and where.
As the loaders load the aircraft they write what they have loaded in each compartment and sign it, before giving it to the ground dispatcher.
The ground dispatcher checks to make sure that how the loaders have loaded the aircraft matches how they were told to load it.
Any differences should be picked up and either the aircraft reloaded correctly, the loadsheet ammended via the LMC section for small differences or a new loadsheet produced which matches the actual loading.
I will close with the statement from IATA which governs the above procedures.
"Loadsheet activities are NOT complete and the aircraft NOT permitted to depart until the loadsheet and loading instruction / report are in TOTAL agreement"
If an error in the loading was to blame in this case then it was either the loaders who did not report exactly how they had loaded the aircraft or the dispatcher who did not spot and correct the error.
Either way hats off to the crew.
Next time you get a minute grab a manual loadsheet and see just how much 3 tonnes in the front affects the MACTOW of your aircraft and how far you have to spin the trim wheel in a nose up direction to compensate. You may be suprised.
Sorry to butt in on what is looking like an interesting debate.
Firstly a load controller works out how to load an aircraft so that the CofG is within the limits. This is done several hours before departure and is based on booked figures.
They then send a written instruction called a 'loading instruction / report' to the loaders, this says exactly what should be loaded and where.
As the loaders load the aircraft they write what they have loaded in each compartment and sign it, before giving it to the ground dispatcher.
The ground dispatcher checks to make sure that how the loaders have loaded the aircraft matches how they were told to load it.
Any differences should be picked up and either the aircraft reloaded correctly, the loadsheet ammended via the LMC section for small differences or a new loadsheet produced which matches the actual loading.
I will close with the statement from IATA which governs the above procedures.
"Loadsheet activities are NOT complete and the aircraft NOT permitted to depart until the loadsheet and loading instruction / report are in TOTAL agreement"
If an error in the loading was to blame in this case then it was either the loaders who did not report exactly how they had loaded the aircraft or the dispatcher who did not spot and correct the error.
Either way hats off to the crew.
Next time you get a minute grab a manual loadsheet and see just how much 3 tonnes in the front affects the MACTOW of your aircraft and how far you have to spin the trim wheel in a nose up direction to compensate. You may be suprised.
Sorry to butt in on what is looking like an interesting debate.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: ME
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off, A Big Congratulations to the Crew, I bet the beers in the Hotel that night tasted Magnificent.
A quick question, does anybody know the actual wx at Joburg that night ? a previous post says Rwy 03 is the prevailing wind rwy however rwy 21 was in use at the time. I'm sure everything was in limits but the T/O perf and subsequent CLB gradient on a big jet like the A340 with as little as 6 or 7 knots tailwind is adversley affected.
Just another possibility
A quick question, does anybody know the actual wx at Joburg that night ? a previous post says Rwy 03 is the prevailing wind rwy however rwy 21 was in use at the time. I'm sure everything was in limits but the T/O perf and subsequent CLB gradient on a big jet like the A340 with as little as 6 or 7 knots tailwind is adversley affected.
Just another possibility
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nibor,
Thanks for the run-down on the process of how the final trim levels are decided upon.
On another note, just how effective are the arrestor beds seen at some thresholds at stopping a several hundered tonne airliner going 160kts plus?
I'm surprised in these days of FBW airbus's that once you run out of elevator authority the coputer doesn't command instant trim apllications. It was always my assumption that in the Airbus you don't command a control surface deflection, but rather a pitch angle/rate, and the computers do whatever they have to do to get you there, without leaving the flight envelope?
Thanks for the run-down on the process of how the final trim levels are decided upon.
On another note, just how effective are the arrestor beds seen at some thresholds at stopping a several hundered tonne airliner going 160kts plus?
I'm surprised in these days of FBW airbus's that once you run out of elevator authority the coputer doesn't command instant trim apllications. It was always my assumption that in the Airbus you don't command a control surface deflection, but rather a pitch angle/rate, and the computers do whatever they have to do to get you there, without leaving the flight envelope?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was always my assumption that in the Airbus you don't command a control surface deflection, but rather a pitch angle/rate, and the computers do whatever they have to do to get you there, without leaving the flight envelope?
Until a certain time after takeoff, you might be suprised to know that the Airbus Flt Controls act like a C152. Control Surface deflection directly in proportion to Control Stick Deflection...
NoD
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ta NoD. I'd be lost without you guys! 
The more I think about this, the more scary it seems. Reach VR, pull back normally, nowt, pull back some more, nowt, start to sweat, pull it to the the stop, still nothing, fill trousers.
"Will the fat git in row 44 please make their way forward of the CG please!"
The more I think about this, the more scary it seems. Reach VR, pull back normally, nowt, pull back some more, nowt, start to sweat, pull it to the the stop, still nothing, fill trousers.
"Will the fat git in row 44 please make their way forward of the CG please!"
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Home
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BigHitDH
Did I miss something
should that be "Will the fat git in row 44 please make their way to the aft toilets to assist rotation"
Did I miss something
"Will the fat git in row 44 please make their way forward of the CG please!""
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you might be suprised to know that the Airbus Flt Controls
'What's it doing now' seems to be an impossible question to answer
