Emirates emergency landing in JNB
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: here & there
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Has anyone mentioned a stick failure at all ?ECAM does NOT trigger a warning on that one![QUOTE]
sidestick faults are indicated by a single chime & master caution light, they are NEVER inhibited during any phase of flight !!
The 'maltese cross' on both PFD's is visible throughout the ground roll until airborne, and indicates the algebraic sum of the Captains & F/O's sidestick inputs. Its purpose is to permit PNF to monitor the aircraft performance relative to the input observed, in the same way on a conventional machine the PNF watches the 'Yoke' deflections.
Roger Miller.
sidestick faults are indicated by a single chime & master caution light, they are NEVER inhibited during any phase of flight !!
The 'maltese cross' on both PFD's is visible throughout the ground roll until airborne, and indicates the algebraic sum of the Captains & F/O's sidestick inputs. Its purpose is to permit PNF to monitor the aircraft performance relative to the input observed, in the same way on a conventional machine the PNF watches the 'Yoke' deflections.
Roger Miller.
Paxing All Over The World
Non pilot speaking:
"What time of day do EK depart JNB?"
EK 762 dpt daily for Dubai (DXB) at 14:15 local
EK 764 dpt daily for Dubai at 19:15 local
(Code shared with SAA as SA 7158)
Both listed as being 343 a/c.
Incident reported as being "around 21:30 on Friday 9th April 2004". This is the typical time for longhauls to leave JNB, from 20:00 onwards when the heat has gone out of the day.
CDRW: "The PNF - does he/she have any indication of how much movement the PF has put into the stick??"
The substance of this question has already been answered. My understanding from previous Airbus discussions in PPRuNe, is that either Captain or First Office can command control to their side by a switch at any time? This is to allow for sudden incapacity of PF etc. This changeover of command side is annunciated clearly and recorded by FDR. I sit to be corrected on that.
CDRW: "So it looks like first stone is being thrown by the good old manufacturer - pilot error!!!" Sounds like they are on their SOP of "Get our version in first and, by the way, it was the pilot's fault." My greatest reservation about Airbus has always been the way in which they consistently blame the pilot/s - irrespective of the circumstances. It comes across to me, as a corporate mantra stemming from the very highest level and I do not like it.
"What time of day do EK depart JNB?"
EK 762 dpt daily for Dubai (DXB) at 14:15 local
EK 764 dpt daily for Dubai at 19:15 local
(Code shared with SAA as SA 7158)
Both listed as being 343 a/c.
Incident reported as being "around 21:30 on Friday 9th April 2004". This is the typical time for longhauls to leave JNB, from 20:00 onwards when the heat has gone out of the day.
CDRW: "The PNF - does he/she have any indication of how much movement the PF has put into the stick??"
The substance of this question has already been answered. My understanding from previous Airbus discussions in PPRuNe, is that either Captain or First Office can command control to their side by a switch at any time? This is to allow for sudden incapacity of PF etc. This changeover of command side is annunciated clearly and recorded by FDR. I sit to be corrected on that.
CDRW: "So it looks like first stone is being thrown by the good old manufacturer - pilot error!!!" Sounds like they are on their SOP of "Get our version in first and, by the way, it was the pilot's fault." My greatest reservation about Airbus has always been the way in which they consistently blame the pilot/s - irrespective of the circumstances. It comes across to me, as a corporate mantra stemming from the very highest level and I do not like it.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP56
I must say that the similarity between the event under discussion on this thread and the one you have just mentioned is not obvious to me
I must say that the similarity between the event under discussion on this thread and the one you have just mentioned is not obvious to me
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Matruh, Egypt and Belize.
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't for the life of me fiquire out why weight and balance computers are not fitted in the "great European aircraft" called the airbus. If nothing else the W & B computor provodes a check angainst the load sheet. It's hardly new as the later models of the B707 had them. Called a STAN system, if memory serves me correctly.
Some of the cargo brokers used to hate it, as it would uncover their dirty little lies of what weight was actually on board.
Just a thought, it might very well have picked up the problem in this case before the A/C reached V1.
Some of the cargo brokers used to hate it, as it would uncover their dirty little lies of what weight was actually on board.
Just a thought, it might very well have picked up the problem in this case before the A/C reached V1.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a non-flying type,
1. Are "Bug-Settings" for V1 etc.. still (in this case A343) manually set prior to departure, or does the FMS handle all these data calculations and settings?
2. "IF" a rotation was commanded prior to v(rotate), does the deflection of ailerons increase drag and thus increase the length of runway required to achieve flying speed?
This is not an indication of what I think may/may not have happened, just a curious mind.
Invictus
1. Are "Bug-Settings" for V1 etc.. still (in this case A343) manually set prior to departure, or does the FMS handle all these data calculations and settings?
2. "IF" a rotation was commanded prior to v(rotate), does the deflection of ailerons increase drag and thus increase the length of runway required to achieve flying speed?
This is not an indication of what I think may/may not have happened, just a curious mind.
Invictus
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Mahlangeni
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Scarebus the following applies re take-off performance:
FLEX => balanced take-off (TOD=ASD)
TOGA => unbalanced take-off
Thus, if using FLEX and an abort is initiated at V1, the A/C comes to a stop at the end of the runway, provided flexing to the maximum possible for that runway.
Some operators even have programs on their laptops that tell them how many meters will remain in case of aborting (e.g. 10 meters).
FLEX => balanced take-off (TOD=ASD)
TOGA => unbalanced take-off
Thus, if using FLEX and an abort is initiated at V1, the A/C comes to a stop at the end of the runway, provided flexing to the maximum possible for that runway.
Some operators even have programs on their laptops that tell them how many meters will remain in case of aborting (e.g. 10 meters).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: here & there
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attn : Angel's Playmate !!
Where is your sim ? maybe it's a company option ?
I work the instructors panel weekly & frequently give this failure on prof.checks and conversions.
On MY sim there are definately ECAM cautions & warnings for various sidestick faults & failures, including when inoperative due to takeover pb pushed for more than 30secs.
See FCOM 1.27.40 p12, SEQ201, REV36.
CONFIG R (L) SIDESTICK FAULT (BY TAKEOVER)
L (R) SIDESTICK FAULT
*asterisk note at bottom of page.
Cheers : Roger Miller.
Where is your sim ? maybe it's a company option ?
I work the instructors panel weekly & frequently give this failure on prof.checks and conversions.
On MY sim there are definately ECAM cautions & warnings for various sidestick faults & failures, including when inoperative due to takeover pb pushed for more than 30secs.
See FCOM 1.27.40 p12, SEQ201, REV36.
CONFIG R (L) SIDESTICK FAULT (BY TAKEOVER)
L (R) SIDESTICK FAULT
*asterisk note at bottom of page.
Cheers : Roger Miller.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a non-flying type,
1. Are "Bug-Settings" for V1 etc.. still (in this case A343) manually set prior to departure, or does the FMS handle all these data calculations and settings?
2. "IF" a rotation was commanded prior to v(rotate), does the deflection of ailerons increase drag and thus increase the length of runway required to achieve flying speed?
This is not an indication of what I think may/may not have happened, just a curious mind.
1. Are "Bug-Settings" for V1 etc.. still (in this case A343) manually set prior to departure, or does the FMS handle all these data calculations and settings?
2. "IF" a rotation was commanded prior to v(rotate), does the deflection of ailerons increase drag and thus increase the length of runway required to achieve flying speed?
This is not an indication of what I think may/may not have happened, just a curious mind.
The V1 bug settings are handled by the FMS (FMGC in the Airbus). The figures are derived are from crew input however, as with any computer system (Sh!t in - Sh!t out).
The crew enter their weights (operating empty weight, fuel weights, and the current centre of gravity), plus the desired flap settings for takeoff and the current wind/runway conditions and pressure alititude. The FMS will then auto generate a trim setting and auto-populate the VSpeed fields, as well as produce an expected thrust setting needed.
It is however the resposibility of the crew to check these speeds against the various takeoff perfomance tables, and adjust taking into account all the variables such as wether engine de-ice is needed, runway slope, headwind/tailwind, pressure altitude, temerature, and reported surface braking action condition, among other things.
To answer question 2: If rotation is commanded prior to VR, (you mention AILERON defelction, I presume you mean ELEVATOR deflection?) then yes, this deflection will increase the drag and thus the runway length needed.
Some operators recommend that to counter the "nose-up" effect of setting takeoff thrust, aplly half-forward stick deflection until 80 knots, then gradually release until at 100kts. For crosswind takeoffs applying rudder and aileron deflection during the takeoff roll to maintain the runway centerline, the action of the spoilerons being partially extended on one wing can greatly increase the drag on that side of the aircraft, leading to the aircraft turning into the wind. For that reason it is not recommended to use excessive amounts of sideways stick deflection during the takeoff roll. If you do, you must centre the sidestick during rotation so you get airborne with zero roll rate demand. After that you are supposed to follow the SRS pitch command bar (a bit like the flight director).
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Mahlangeni
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FMGS doesn't generate any speeds, at least not on the Pegasus types. The pilot inserts them, derived from the book.
There are no one set of V speeds for SRS. Green Dot, F & S speeds will be generated by the FAC, but the take-off speeds are pilot inserted.
There can actually be a whole host of various V1/VR/V2 speeds, depending on FLEX/TOGA/"going to the left"/"shortening" etc. for one specific mass at take-off for one specific runway.
Airbus is speed optimised as oposed to Boeing which is runway optimised.
There are no one set of V speeds for SRS. Green Dot, F & S speeds will be generated by the FAC, but the take-off speeds are pilot inserted.
There can actually be a whole host of various V1/VR/V2 speeds, depending on FLEX/TOGA/"going to the left"/"shortening" etc. for one specific mass at take-off for one specific runway.
Airbus is speed optimised as oposed to Boeing which is runway optimised.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone point out that MFF flying may have been a factor.
A330 is rather 'light' on the stick for rotation, on the other hand on the A343, you have to really pulled to make a correct rotation.
So tendency for experienced 330 crews to under-rotate in A343 and higher risk of tail strikes for A343 crews.
Just my 2 cents
Nice job for the crew.
A330 is rather 'light' on the stick for rotation, on the other hand on the A343, you have to really pulled to make a correct rotation.
So tendency for experienced 330 crews to under-rotate in A343 and higher risk of tail strikes for A343 crews.
Just my 2 cents
Nice job for the crew.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is my first post on this website,take it easy on me plz:>
As was said before, the last thing needed is an A vs B war...
therefore, when i was departing JNB for SYD in january, on a Qantas B744, the normal flight is non stop to SYD, but the Captain had to make a judgement of either leaving behind 16 passengers and having no problem with reaching SYD, or stopping over to refuel at Perth.He did however choose to refuel at Perth.
Therefore this shows that any little weight, even on the mighty B744 makes an enormous difference, a difference of gettin airborne or not in the current circumstances.
p.s it was relatively hot that day as one would expect in summer.
As was said before, the last thing needed is an A vs B war...
therefore, when i was departing JNB for SYD in january, on a Qantas B744, the normal flight is non stop to SYD, but the Captain had to make a judgement of either leaving behind 16 passengers and having no problem with reaching SYD, or stopping over to refuel at Perth.He did however choose to refuel at Perth.
Therefore this shows that any little weight, even on the mighty B744 makes an enormous difference, a difference of gettin airborne or not in the current circumstances.
p.s it was relatively hot that day as one would expect in summer.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
planecrazi,
It's late, I'm tired and sticking my neck out but.........
If you are lighter, then you flex more and power to weight is reduced?
On a lighter note (pun intended
)..
I hear rumour tonight that the crew have been cleared
and the target of blame has been moved elsewhere.
It's late, I'm tired and sticking my neck out but.........
If you are lighter, then you flex more and power to weight is reduced?
On a lighter note (pun intended
)..I hear rumour tonight that the crew have been cleared
and the target of blame has been moved elsewhere.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRBUS FTO
Ive finally been faxed the AIRBUS FTO, it states:
The aircraft rotated to 7deg nose up at its Vr of 150kts....... the nose was then lowered to 3.5deg nose up before being raised again and TOGA selected.
The takeoff occured 17secs after initial rotation at 9deg nose up and CAS of 174kts.
3 tyres blew as the aircraft trampled the rwy end lights. The tyres fragged the flaps causing them to be stuck at 1+F.
After dumping fuel the aircraft blew 4 more tyres on landing.
The aircraft rotated to 7deg nose up at its Vr of 150kts....... the nose was then lowered to 3.5deg nose up before being raised again and TOGA selected.
The takeoff occured 17secs after initial rotation at 9deg nose up and CAS of 174kts.
3 tyres blew as the aircraft trampled the rwy end lights. The tyres fragged the flaps causing them to be stuck at 1+F.
After dumping fuel the aircraft blew 4 more tyres on landing.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In the oil wealth of sand dunes
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is long, but direct from the Airbus FCOM on Take0ff. Emphasis on the Roation technique. The moderator may shorten it, but at least is shows where it fits in to the Airbus procedures.Look at Rotation Perform and note the immediate CAUTION regarding a tailscrape.
Note is taken that EK did not tailscrape.
TAKEOFF Airbus FCOM 3.3.12
This Topic is relevant to the whole fleet
At VR, initiate the rotation with a positive sidestick input to achieve a continuous rotation rate of about 3�/sec, towards a pitch attitude of 12.5�.
I have been trying to copy and paste a PDF file about rotation technique from the Bulletin section of the FCOM 3 but have no luck at the moment. If anyone knows how to copy and paste a PDF, let us know and I will glady show for those interested. All the above comes from the Airbus FCOM CD.
Note is taken that EK did not tailscrape.
TAKEOFF Airbus FCOM 3.3.12
This Topic is relevant to the whole fleet
At VR, initiate the rotation with a positive sidestick input to achieve a continuous rotation rate of about 3�/sec, towards a pitch attitude of 12.5�.
I have been trying to copy and paste a PDF file about rotation technique from the Bulletin section of the FCOM 3 but have no luck at the moment. If anyone knows how to copy and paste a PDF, let us know and I will glady show for those interested. All the above comes from the Airbus FCOM CD.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates and the news media
Dubai has always been masterful at public relations but I'm somewhat amazed that I have seen nothing in newspapers or Internet on this topic. Am I asleep at the switch and just missed the news or are they really that good?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weight & Balance
I've played around a bit with our W&B system. We don't have the 340 in the system, so I selected an MD11 which is of comparable size.
Anyway, I introduced "dummy" weights to balance the aircraft and then "played" around with the bulk (Hold 5) load. If H5 was loaded to maximum (3400KG), with all other parameters static, the ZFW MAC would be 21.13%. With 3 tons less, i.e. 400 kg in H5, the ZFW MAC was reduced to 15.92% - a quite remarkable difference as anyone even vaguely familiar with W&B will tell you. And obviously, the stab. trim settings will be quite different on a 21% vs. a 16% MAC. I am assuming that even a fully electric Airbus still need to have the stab. trim set manually for take-off. Correct me if I'm wrong.
While it has been stated that an additional 3 tons might not have any great impact on performance, it will have a very measureable effect on the trim if loaded at the far end of the aircraft.
Just an observation mind you, nothing more or less.
Anyway, I introduced "dummy" weights to balance the aircraft and then "played" around with the bulk (Hold 5) load. If H5 was loaded to maximum (3400KG), with all other parameters static, the ZFW MAC would be 21.13%. With 3 tons less, i.e. 400 kg in H5, the ZFW MAC was reduced to 15.92% - a quite remarkable difference as anyone even vaguely familiar with W&B will tell you. And obviously, the stab. trim settings will be quite different on a 21% vs. a 16% MAC. I am assuming that even a fully electric Airbus still need to have the stab. trim set manually for take-off. Correct me if I'm wrong.
While it has been stated that an additional 3 tons might not have any great impact on performance, it will have a very measureable effect on the trim if loaded at the far end of the aircraft.
Just an observation mind you, nothing more or less.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap 56 - many airlines have incidents of misloading!! Not just EK. Obviously you have a bee in your bonnet about something. Are things covered up?? Just because it's not in "The Gulf News" doesn't mean that it's being hushed up. I certainly read about the incident through the EK safety department - which is confidential and rightly so!! BA have a monthly ASR digest which is also CONFIDENTIAL but not everything that happens to a BA aircraft makes the BEEB or the Daily Mail... Why any different for EK
As for the "Paris" incident, how many photos have we seen of aircraft sitting on their tails BEFORE they even leave the gate??? Let alone on selecting take off thrust. Good thing we have switched on crew isn't it.
As for the "Paris" incident, how many photos have we seen of aircraft sitting on their tails BEFORE they even leave the gate??? Let alone on selecting take off thrust. Good thing we have switched on crew isn't it.