Emirates A340-300 incident @ JoBurg. Report is public
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jew-Buy Mate
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bickering aside, does anyone know what implications the publication of the report will have for the two pilots involved, who incidentaly have been suspended since the event?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gulf News
There should be no implications for the crew since we will show clear indications that the UAE CAA themselves are lacking the competence to make any judgment.
Bushbolox
I suggest that you read JAR OPS 1.515 with special attention to point 1.515 (d).
1.515 (d) If an operator is unable to comply with subparagraph (c) (1) above for a destination aerodrome having a single runway where a landing depends upon a specific wind component, an aeroplane may be dispatched if 2 alternate aerodromes are designated witch permit full compliance with subparagraphs (a),(b) and(c). Before commencing an approach to land at the destination aerodrome the commander must satisfy himself that a landing can be made in full compliance with JAR-OPS 1.510 and sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above.That is factored.
Referring to JAR OPS 1.475 (a) (1) one should read clearly that despatch rules are NOT the same as mass at Take Off. What JAR OPS states is that when starting the approach you NEED to factor normal landing distances based upon the latest available met conditions at estimated arrival time. From that point they work their way back to the Take Off mass.
Any possible confusion as to the application of this rule is clearly phrased in point 1.515 (d). This clearly indicates that if they want to refer to explicit dispatch conditions they use the term as appropriate.
Your assumption that, once the gear is up, unfactored LDA calculations are allowed would put us in a real mess. I realize that following your reasoning you would be flying to an aerodrome that met factoring LDA at an earlier stage in the flight (Take Off interpreted as despatch) but if conditions changed enroute, your reasoning would imply that the regulator allows you to act as a factory pilot and I do not believe that that was his goal. The non factored data, obtained during certification actually put the Aircraft almost in an emergency condition after landing. I am sure you do not want to do that.
For non-normals factoring is not stipulated but a VERY wise thing to do.
I would like to point out clearly that thinking like a lawyer is exactly what you do not want in this business.
I guess that your life is as important as that of your pax so they should not have to worry.
As far as my communication style is concerned I can assure you that it is appropriate to these circumstances as this is the only way EK communicates themselves. EK pilots do not realise I am and always have been on their side.
I do not care if your DFO was next to you in the classroom, it's the DFO's at EK who got them in this mess anyway.
There should be no implications for the crew since we will show clear indications that the UAE CAA themselves are lacking the competence to make any judgment.
Bushbolox
I suggest that you read JAR OPS 1.515 with special attention to point 1.515 (d).
1.515 (d) If an operator is unable to comply with subparagraph (c) (1) above for a destination aerodrome having a single runway where a landing depends upon a specific wind component, an aeroplane may be dispatched if 2 alternate aerodromes are designated witch permit full compliance with subparagraphs (a),(b) and(c). Before commencing an approach to land at the destination aerodrome the commander must satisfy himself that a landing can be made in full compliance with JAR-OPS 1.510 and sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above.That is factored.
Referring to JAR OPS 1.475 (a) (1) one should read clearly that despatch rules are NOT the same as mass at Take Off. What JAR OPS states is that when starting the approach you NEED to factor normal landing distances based upon the latest available met conditions at estimated arrival time. From that point they work their way back to the Take Off mass.
Any possible confusion as to the application of this rule is clearly phrased in point 1.515 (d). This clearly indicates that if they want to refer to explicit dispatch conditions they use the term as appropriate.
Your assumption that, once the gear is up, unfactored LDA calculations are allowed would put us in a real mess. I realize that following your reasoning you would be flying to an aerodrome that met factoring LDA at an earlier stage in the flight (Take Off interpreted as despatch) but if conditions changed enroute, your reasoning would imply that the regulator allows you to act as a factory pilot and I do not believe that that was his goal. The non factored data, obtained during certification actually put the Aircraft almost in an emergency condition after landing. I am sure you do not want to do that.
For non-normals factoring is not stipulated but a VERY wise thing to do.
I would like to point out clearly that thinking like a lawyer is exactly what you do not want in this business.
I guess that your life is as important as that of your pax so they should not have to worry.
As far as my communication style is concerned I can assure you that it is appropriate to these circumstances as this is the only way EK communicates themselves. EK pilots do not realise I am and always have been on their side.
I do not care if your DFO was next to you in the classroom, it's the DFO's at EK who got them in this mess anyway.
Last edited by Streamline; 12th Feb 2006 at 16:19.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: lgw
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Streanline,
Thank you for your guidance. I shall read the appropiate jar sections just before wiping on my next visit.
But erm... I should factor my distances before commencing an approach to comply with jar ops blah de blah....but ....i' m not intended to be a factory pilot.......speak English man.
It does what it says on the tin.If it needs 900 it uses 900. Been there ate the rubber.
Thank you for your guidance. I shall read the appropiate jar sections just before wiping on my next visit.
But erm... I should factor my distances before commencing an approach to comply with jar ops blah de blah....but ....i' m not intended to be a factory pilot.......speak English man.
It does what it says on the tin.If it needs 900 it uses 900. Been there ate the rubber.
What triainline is trying to say is that for a normal landing at destination you must apply a factor of 1.67 dry and 1.92 wet to the qrh figures. It is not just a case of if you are airborne you use qrh figures, a lot of EK guys believe this to be true, but its bullsh..... Only time you dont apply factors if it is a non-normal landing ie eng fail, flap/slat fail, then its qrh figs with no factor...
A lot of its down to EK perf instructors not really knowing what they are talking about, it's a specialised subject that requires dedicated intructors...pity EK try to save money everywhere ( every Dh is a prisoner )
including safety!!!!!
A lot of its down to EK perf instructors not really knowing what they are talking about, it's a specialised subject that requires dedicated intructors...pity EK try to save money everywhere ( every Dh is a prisoner )
including safety!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the exact truth.
To get EK back on track we had to reeducate the whole training department on basic performance issues.
The performance engineer was so fed up that he left the company and was hired by Boeing, only to come back a few months later as their rep to explain EK how to finally and legally dispatch an ETOPS flight something the A 330 Technical pilot did not understand.
We caused some waves and EK used a spin to deal with it. They are dangerous.
To get EK back on track we had to reeducate the whole training department on basic performance issues.
The performance engineer was so fed up that he left the company and was hired by Boeing, only to come back a few months later as their rep to explain EK how to finally and legally dispatch an ETOPS flight something the A 330 Technical pilot did not understand.
We caused some waves and EK used a spin to deal with it. They are dangerous.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: eastern europe
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we all agree, including Streamline, that in this abnormal scenario factoring was not a legal requirement. Furthermore the correctness (or at least not the incorrectness) of this is confirmed by the fact that the aircraft landed and all on board walked away from it.
Streamline has got his teeth into this and he will not let go.
I support the suggestion that he is being deliberately contentious in order to prolong the life of this thread, with the intention of maintaining a medium that allows him to mock his former employer and its associates.
This confirmed by the random snipings at EK/GCAA that are scattered throughout his postings.
In short, he has hijacked this thread for his own ends.
Streamline has got his teeth into this and he will not let go.
I support the suggestion that he is being deliberately contentious in order to prolong the life of this thread, with the intention of maintaining a medium that allows him to mock his former employer and its associates.
This confirmed by the random snipings at EK/GCAA that are scattered throughout his postings.
In short, he has hijacked this thread for his own ends.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Streamline
I think you need to have a rest and re-read some of your posts you are mixing up your requirements from dispatch and airborne. You also quoted in bold colours that JAA rules require ..blah blah... for DESTINATION Airport. Well old chap the destination of the EK flight from JNB was DXB was it not! They had to RETURN to JNB due to damage to the aircraft. They were NOT planning to return to JNB when they started the takeoff run.
I fly three types of Airbus A330-300, A340-300 and A340-600 and use exactly the same technique on all three as per my company and Airbus manuals/procedures. Looking outside and inside not solely one or the other.
The "cross" be it German or Maltese is a stick position indicator and that is all it is. We fly our aircraft by ATTITUDE, and with sometimes!!
There are tables for Actual Landing Distance and Required Landing Distance. In our QRH's we have tables for Landing Distance without Autobrake (and that is the Test Pliot type landing) and it has corrections for contaminant wind slope etc. We also have Autoland with autobrake. The first = shortest distance the latter = longest, if we had runway length = to the longest NO problems. Assuming we had adjusted the Landing Distance Config Full by the appropriate factor, in the initial calculation,( and it covers every possible mixture of Slats and Flaps position). If I still was not happy I could go to FCOM 2 landing performance and by using the tables there could probably come up with a figure that is between the two from the QRH.
Here are a few snippets from my Co. manuals
DISPATCH REQUIREMENT - required landing distance at forecast landing weight shall not exceed LDA Dest and Altn/ most suitable runway nil wind / forcast wind. Effect of aircraft system failure affecting LDA "KNOWN" before dispatch MUST be allowed for in LDA calculation. The effect of thrust reversers is SHOULD NOT be included.
IN FLIGHT FAILURE - Runway lenght considered for landing is ALD without failure multiplied by appropriate factor given in FCOM 2 and QRH. It should be noted that the LD is the absolute minimum achievable only margin being reverse thrust IF available.
ROTATION - At Vr promptly and smoothly apply and hold approximately 2/3 aft sidestick to achieve a rotation rate of approximately 2 to 3 deg/sec, assessed primarily by outside visual reference. Avoid rapid and large corrections that will result in a sharp reaction in pitch from the aircraft. THE ROTATION RATE MAY TAKE TIME TO ESTABLISH FOR A GIVEN STICK INPUT, once it has established it remains fairly constant. Rotation rate is important too low compromises performance too high = risk of tailstrike. As the rotation progresses and runway environment disappears transfer to the PFD to establish initial PITCH ATTITUDE ( 15 330 / 12.5 340-300 / 15 340-600). Once airborne and SRS commands have lowered follow the FD's.
ROTATION PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES - A330 considerable excess thrust so a normally flown rotate will generally achieve a stabilised speed in excess of V2+10, do not increase the rotation rate to contain the speed excess. at heavy weights the A/C has more inertia and it is slower to commence rotation, as it starts to rotate MAINTAIN the back pressure to achieve steady rotation to target attitude, mainwheels lift off around 9-10deg pitch attitude. The A/C could stop rotating at this point if the back pressure is NOT maintained. There is a slight "sensory" difference in the rotation of the -600 due to the A/C being longer and more flexible, do not react to this, use the same techniques, as the rotation law has been adapted to cater for this.
From all of this one can only assume the training fell over somewhere and it also seems strange that they EK do not roster the trainees to fly at least two sectors with a trainer after the CCQ training in the simulator, if that was really the case. It could have prevented this incident!
I think you need to have a rest and re-read some of your posts you are mixing up your requirements from dispatch and airborne. You also quoted in bold colours that JAA rules require ..blah blah... for DESTINATION Airport. Well old chap the destination of the EK flight from JNB was DXB was it not! They had to RETURN to JNB due to damage to the aircraft. They were NOT planning to return to JNB when they started the takeoff run.
I fly three types of Airbus A330-300, A340-300 and A340-600 and use exactly the same technique on all three as per my company and Airbus manuals/procedures. Looking outside and inside not solely one or the other.
The "cross" be it German or Maltese is a stick position indicator and that is all it is. We fly our aircraft by ATTITUDE, and with sometimes!!
There are tables for Actual Landing Distance and Required Landing Distance. In our QRH's we have tables for Landing Distance without Autobrake (and that is the Test Pliot type landing) and it has corrections for contaminant wind slope etc. We also have Autoland with autobrake. The first = shortest distance the latter = longest, if we had runway length = to the longest NO problems. Assuming we had adjusted the Landing Distance Config Full by the appropriate factor, in the initial calculation,( and it covers every possible mixture of Slats and Flaps position). If I still was not happy I could go to FCOM 2 landing performance and by using the tables there could probably come up with a figure that is between the two from the QRH.
Here are a few snippets from my Co. manuals
DISPATCH REQUIREMENT - required landing distance at forecast landing weight shall not exceed LDA Dest and Altn/ most suitable runway nil wind / forcast wind. Effect of aircraft system failure affecting LDA "KNOWN" before dispatch MUST be allowed for in LDA calculation. The effect of thrust reversers is SHOULD NOT be included.
IN FLIGHT FAILURE - Runway lenght considered for landing is ALD without failure multiplied by appropriate factor given in FCOM 2 and QRH. It should be noted that the LD is the absolute minimum achievable only margin being reverse thrust IF available.
ROTATION - At Vr promptly and smoothly apply and hold approximately 2/3 aft sidestick to achieve a rotation rate of approximately 2 to 3 deg/sec, assessed primarily by outside visual reference. Avoid rapid and large corrections that will result in a sharp reaction in pitch from the aircraft. THE ROTATION RATE MAY TAKE TIME TO ESTABLISH FOR A GIVEN STICK INPUT, once it has established it remains fairly constant. Rotation rate is important too low compromises performance too high = risk of tailstrike. As the rotation progresses and runway environment disappears transfer to the PFD to establish initial PITCH ATTITUDE ( 15 330 / 12.5 340-300 / 15 340-600). Once airborne and SRS commands have lowered follow the FD's.
ROTATION PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES - A330 considerable excess thrust so a normally flown rotate will generally achieve a stabilised speed in excess of V2+10, do not increase the rotation rate to contain the speed excess. at heavy weights the A/C has more inertia and it is slower to commence rotation, as it starts to rotate MAINTAIN the back pressure to achieve steady rotation to target attitude, mainwheels lift off around 9-10deg pitch attitude. The A/C could stop rotating at this point if the back pressure is NOT maintained. There is a slight "sensory" difference in the rotation of the -600 due to the A/C being longer and more flexible, do not react to this, use the same techniques, as the rotation law has been adapted to cater for this.
From all of this one can only assume the training fell over somewhere and it also seems strange that they EK do not roster the trainees to fly at least two sectors with a trainer after the CCQ training in the simulator, if that was really the case. It could have prevented this incident!
Last edited by electricjetjock; 13th Feb 2006 at 01:45.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disregarding all the rights and wrongs of this sorry situation, hands up all who are sick and *** tired of this streamlined individual from Belgium? Car-, the man you so love to hate from DGCA is no longer with them. He was replaced by a local gentleman quite some time ago, (LONG before this incident), so give your "DGCA are all fools" line a rest or you rsk being Politically Incorrect.
At least you haven't (yet) deleted your posts (a habit you've indulged in repeatedly both as 'Streamline' and 'Cap56' and God only knows in what other guises here on Pprune) when, as in your "you are dangerous" quip back on page 2, you have been proven to be wrong over and over again in your assertions - (as well as seriously flawed in your technical knowledge, a subject you obviously believe yourself to be infinitely superior to every other pilot in the world).
One question you never seem to get around to answering: why did you leave EK?
At least you haven't (yet) deleted your posts (a habit you've indulged in repeatedly both as 'Streamline' and 'Cap56' and God only knows in what other guises here on Pprune) when, as in your "you are dangerous" quip back on page 2, you have been proven to be wrong over and over again in your assertions - (as well as seriously flawed in your technical knowledge, a subject you obviously believe yourself to be infinitely superior to every other pilot in the world).
One question you never seem to get around to answering: why did you leave EK?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: AUH
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good point there 7X7. I seem to remember a EK FO who was the holder of all knowledge. In fact he knew soooo much he never had to listen to anyone else. Think he was let go because of some reason that would probably stop him from holding a licence in most parts of the world.
Streamline, I think you need to let go of the past and get on with your life.
Streamline, I think you need to let go of the past and get on with your life.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: eastern europe
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, two Streamline posts did disappear on Sunday evening. They were rather short lived and probably moderated.
One was a rather unCRMish outburst concerning CRM in multi national crew complements in which he mentioned three names.
The other post was a suggestion that he left his previous employer of his own free will.
One was a rather unCRMish outburst concerning CRM in multi national crew complements in which he mentioned three names.
The other post was a suggestion that he left his previous employer of his own free will.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plovdiv
What you say is completely beside the point.
If factoring is required for normal operations then there are very good reasons for that.
In non normal situations you get a basic figure (no factoring). I am only stating that it is a very wise thing to apply some factoring anyway. It is just common sense to do so definitely if one understands how these numbers are obtained.
Ignoring this is a serious lack in training. We can all sum up cases were one could legally get into trouble. I think any pilot or judge with common sense would agree.
7x7
I will publish the audit that states that EK did not meed the minimum international safety standards when I was there. I know it must hurt but it's in your own interest that you face the reality of the place. Leave your emotions behind and face the facts.
What you say is completely beside the point.
If factoring is required for normal operations then there are very good reasons for that.
In non normal situations you get a basic figure (no factoring). I am only stating that it is a very wise thing to apply some factoring anyway. It is just common sense to do so definitely if one understands how these numbers are obtained.
Ignoring this is a serious lack in training. We can all sum up cases were one could legally get into trouble. I think any pilot or judge with common sense would agree.
7x7
I will publish the audit that states that EK did not meed the minimum international safety standards when I was there. I know it must hurt but it's in your own interest that you face the reality of the place. Leave your emotions behind and face the facts.
Last edited by Streamline; 13th Feb 2006 at 13:38.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Waterworld
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Streamline,
The paragraph you refer to but dont post 1.510 states that ( my words) you must satisfy that there sufficient distance to landetc etc etc. It doesnt say you have to factor it which is a function of belt and braces to meet the probability requirements of PERF A and is not a real time landing distance but a theoretical equivalent.Therefore PI figures need to fit thats all. The rest is the decision of the commander or company policy. Not JAR. Get your head out of the books and get a life. Because you obviously cant read legal documents.
Companies that factor do so out of policy not requirement.
The paragraph you refer to but dont post 1.510 states that ( my words) you must satisfy that there sufficient distance to landetc etc etc. It doesnt say you have to factor it which is a function of belt and braces to meet the probability requirements of PERF A and is not a real time landing distance but a theoretical equivalent.Therefore PI figures need to fit thats all. The rest is the decision of the commander or company policy. Not JAR. Get your head out of the books and get a life. Because you obviously cant read legal documents.
Companies that factor do so out of policy not requirement.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that 'Streamline's' at it again - this time amending rather than deleting his earlier posts so they don't contradict his later ones.
Ca**, it pains me to say this, but in your ridiculous attempts to punish all things even vaguely EK, you're achieving almost the opposite, deflecting the thread away from the real topic.
The sad fact is that no matter how remiss many of us may feel EK (not the crew) may have been in their handling the before and after of this sad event, not one of us who know you (ie, who flew with you), can bring ourselves to agree with you, because we know you for what you were then, (and to judge by your ever changing if not disappearing posts, presumedly still are).
Still waiting for the answer... why did you leave EK?
Ca**, it pains me to say this, but in your ridiculous attempts to punish all things even vaguely EK, you're achieving almost the opposite, deflecting the thread away from the real topic.
The sad fact is that no matter how remiss many of us may feel EK (not the crew) may have been in their handling the before and after of this sad event, not one of us who know you (ie, who flew with you), can bring ourselves to agree with you, because we know you for what you were then, (and to judge by your ever changing if not disappearing posts, presumedly still are).
Still waiting for the answer... why did you leave EK?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said it? Was it a TCI, TCE or your grocer?
Originally Posted by Shuttleworth
even 6 month after the incident I was told by an not so popular TCI or TCE, whatever he is, to use the german cross.
Jesus!!!
Emirates need to sort this out before they kill 350 passengers who are sadly unaware of thier omissions in pilot training.
Jesus!!!
Emirates need to sort this out before they kill 350 passengers who are sadly unaware of thier omissions in pilot training.
I think hew mean't the "maltese cross" which is a side stick position indicator. On the ground you move the side stick and on the PFD, you will see the "Maltese Cross" move Bro. Have a look the next time u fly 
The cross is not to be used for anything but the control check and to see that a control demand is being made during rotation. The hint/tip given by a Airbus instructor was false. The bottom line the company was somewhat paranoid about the risk of a tailstrike, but perhaps lost focus on letting the guys fly the aircraft. Just my take anyhow
EGGW
The cross is not to be used for anything but the control check and to see that a control demand is being made during rotation. The hint/tip given by a Airbus instructor was false. The bottom line the company was somewhat paranoid about the risk of a tailstrike, but perhaps lost focus on letting the guys fly the aircraft. Just my take anyhowEGGW
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Streamline
There is a difference between discrediting a pilot and pointing out that inadequate training may be the cause.
I consider the pilots concerned to be a victim of the system. In order to do so you have to point out the shortcomings. I never attacked the pilots, only made observations about the decision making process and I consider that a training issue.
I consider the pilots concerned to be a victim of the system. In order to do so you have to point out the shortcomings. I never attacked the pilots, only made observations about the decision making process and I consider that a training issue.
An Air France Captain did like you say for AF358 Toronto accident. He is still indefinitely grounded since last october....This notwithstanding the fact that he has been flying Airbus A343 for more than 11 years and accumulate more than 5000 hours on this type of aircraft and 17000 hours total flying hours, and is recognized as a valuable insider at both IFALPA and ECA (he is former ECA Vice-Chairman) since last 10 years.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts