Emirates A340-300 incident @ JoBurg. Report is public
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by williewalsh
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: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supertramp
You do not know all the facts
I have edited my posts for minor spelling corrections only.
I have indeed deleted some of my posts on the EK incident on another tread, simply because I was attacked out of the context on a personal level.
If the moderator would not have allowed that to happen, I would not have done so, simply because I have not changed my opinion and reality based on common sense proves I was right.
If iasa-int does what they promised, they will put the FAA and ICAO safety on EK audits on the web. It is the FAA and not me who predicted serious problems with EK. I was a victim of the system as you may be tomorrow.
You do not know all the facts
I have edited my posts for minor spelling corrections only.
I have indeed deleted some of my posts on the EK incident on another tread, simply because I was attacked out of the context on a personal level.
If the moderator would not have allowed that to happen, I would not have done so, simply because I have not changed my opinion and reality based on common sense proves I was right.
If iasa-int does what they promised, they will put the FAA and ICAO safety on EK audits on the web. It is the FAA and not me who predicted serious problems with EK. I was a victim of the system as you may be tomorrow.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dirty Sands
Age: 62
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guttersnipe,
Your quote:
Both of the individuals concerned in this serious incident were and are considered to be ABOVE average.
Well, I don't doubt that, but how could "two individuals above average" not know how to properly rotate the aircraft? No disrespect intended, just for the benefit of a useful debate.
Your quote:
Both of the individuals concerned in this serious incident were and are considered to be ABOVE average.
Well, I don't doubt that, but how could "two individuals above average" not know how to properly rotate the aircraft? No disrespect intended, just for the benefit of a useful debate.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TE RANGI I am inclined to agree with you. It amazes me how EK Pilots all seem to stand up for this Captain who showed a lack of Airmanship. They all want to blame EK training dept 100% . He totally ignored all visual clues. He did not help his cause by doing a Flex T/O. When I was on the A340 I rarely did flex T/O's unless very light and only on smooth runways and when operating as second Captain on long haul flights I was horrified at times to see how some Captains did reduced thrust at most inappropriate places and conditions.I think they were worried that the F/O would sneak on them!!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by millerscourt
I think they were worried that the F/O would sneak on them!!
In which airline are you, or were you flying where F/O sneaking on Captains is tolerable ? That's a brand new pratice encouraged by
management pilots at Air France !
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Millerscourt
From your post it's presumed that on no occassion then should we consider flex/derate departures from JNB? Come on, unless there are situations such as contaminated runways or windshear forcast for example, and there are several other reasons, then using flex if the performance allows us is normal and standard practice. The Captain did use ' airmanship' ultimately by applying full thrust and pulling back visually. No one on this earth would intentially overrun because thay were simply following instruments.
We do have deficiencies in training which i'm not prepared to go into on a public forum but there's one thing that stands out like a dog's balls.The sooner we as a Company can openly and honestly admit these errors and pass on lessons learned to our very own pilots then the better it will be for all involved. We are quick to use other Airlines accidents as case studies in CRM but our own habit of brushing problems nearer to home under the carpet, prevents us from dealing with far more relevant issues.
I'm fed up of reading about ' HF contact lost with Mumbai '. What I and every other pilot wants to read and LEARN from are the incidents that aren't published. The incidents that happen to our Aircraft and our crews!
It all implies rather sadly that there's far too much rhetoric when it comes to the Companies view of Safety and merely highlights the gulf that exists between 'talking' safe and 'training' safe.
So come on EK, we've carried out our own internal investigation into JNB so please reveal the causes behind this incident. Remember our Corporate motto .........Safety Sense!
From your post it's presumed that on no occassion then should we consider flex/derate departures from JNB? Come on, unless there are situations such as contaminated runways or windshear forcast for example, and there are several other reasons, then using flex if the performance allows us is normal and standard practice. The Captain did use ' airmanship' ultimately by applying full thrust and pulling back visually. No one on this earth would intentially overrun because thay were simply following instruments.
We do have deficiencies in training which i'm not prepared to go into on a public forum but there's one thing that stands out like a dog's balls.The sooner we as a Company can openly and honestly admit these errors and pass on lessons learned to our very own pilots then the better it will be for all involved. We are quick to use other Airlines accidents as case studies in CRM but our own habit of brushing problems nearer to home under the carpet, prevents us from dealing with far more relevant issues.
I'm fed up of reading about ' HF contact lost with Mumbai '. What I and every other pilot wants to read and LEARN from are the incidents that aren't published. The incidents that happen to our Aircraft and our crews!
It all implies rather sadly that there's far too much rhetoric when it comes to the Companies view of Safety and merely highlights the gulf that exists between 'talking' safe and 'training' safe.
So come on EK, we've carried out our own internal investigation into JNB so please reveal the causes behind this incident. Remember our Corporate motto .........Safety Sense!
Last edited by BYMONEK; 18th Feb 2006 at 15:56.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BYMONEK I never operated the A340-300 from JNB as it was not on our route structure but unless very light or a very smooth runway I did not derate as I found the A340 take off run most disconcerting with so much clatter and instrument panel bounce that I wanted to get airborne asap!!. Only once have I ever had to reduce thrust to keep below the 930 limit if my memory serves me right.A large number of our A340 flights were at 275 tons so full power was always required in any case.
Far too many Pilots IMHO derate without considering whether it is really appropriate.
Until I went on the A340 I had never operated with other Line Captains as even on the B767 on 13 hour sectors it was just the two of us! It is a real eye opener seeing how some Captains operate into places like SFO and LAX etc. I have cringed at times but also have picked up useful tips from others.
Far too many Pilots IMHO derate without considering whether it is really appropriate.
Until I went on the A340 I had never operated with other Line Captains as even on the B767 on 13 hour sectors it was just the two of us! It is a real eye opener seeing how some Captains operate into places like SFO and LAX etc. I have cringed at times but also have picked up useful tips from others.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When deciding whether or not to us flex on top of derate should depend not only on runway conditions, temperature, winds etc. but how the PIC feels. You must also take into consideration of the age of the aircraft too. Believe it or not on older jets, the BOW of the aircraft may heavier than indicated than what is contained in your manuals. The older type of insulation used alone absorbs condensation between checks. While hard to believe, your jet does gain weight between heavy checks. The BOW of a narrow body aircraft can increase by as much as 1.5 to 2.0 tons between heavy checks. As all of you know for the matter of expedience, airlines use average weights (summer/winter/vacation) for passengers and their bags. Take a look at some of your passengers and their bags traveling with you on your aircraft. If you have time, take a walk outside while the bags are being loaded into the cargo pits of your aircraft. A number of airlines use the bag count method to determine baggage weights. Therefore, the larger the aircraft, the greater the inaccuracy of total bag weights, especially on long haul wide body flights. Thus the increased erroneous figures will further skew the actual weight of the aircraft. I fly non-fly by wire aircraft. Under non-adverse weather conditions, I have pretty much learned how to determine if my aircraft is loaded (CG wise) as advertised on the load sheet when the rotation is initiated, and then just before the aircraft becomes airborne (weight wise). A lot happens very quickly at this point, especially when the end of the runway is coming up pretty quickly. Hopefully very few times in your careers, but out of curiosity how many times has the end of the runway appeared sooner before your jet came off the ground? Then how many of you after the jet was off the ground and climbing away from terra firma, in silence of course, for a minute or two to regain composure have looked at each other after you cleared the cow in the pasture at the end of the runway and said “S**t! The W&B is all F**ed up!”
Pilots may use different methods when it comes to flex on top of derate. Perhaps add a few degrees to the max flex temperature, assume the jet weighs more than as advertised on the load sheet, or screw the flex along with the derate altogether.
In the heat of scheduled service, we don’t have the luxury to see what’s going on around our jet, and have to take it for granted that the aircraft is being loaded, and fueled properly, and the paper work is accurate as well.
In cruise it’s a bit easier to better approximate the weight of the aircraft by TAT, body angle, power settings to maintain the selected cruise Mach. This will make the approach and landing hopefully less exciting than the takeoff.
Pilots may use different methods when it comes to flex on top of derate. Perhaps add a few degrees to the max flex temperature, assume the jet weighs more than as advertised on the load sheet, or screw the flex along with the derate altogether.
In the heat of scheduled service, we don’t have the luxury to see what’s going on around our jet, and have to take it for granted that the aircraft is being loaded, and fueled properly, and the paper work is accurate as well.
In cruise it’s a bit easier to better approximate the weight of the aircraft by TAT, body angle, power settings to maintain the selected cruise Mach. This will make the approach and landing hopefully less exciting than the takeoff.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remainder of SAA CAA Report
Last 3 parts of SAA CAA Report now added to this download menu link
.
http://www.iasa.com.au/A6ERN.htm
.
http://www.iasa.com.au/A6ERN.htm
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say I find it some what worrying that we have people who by their own admission are driving heavy iron (what I drive would come under the classification of extremely light to you guys) but don’t seem to have heard of the Reason model of accident causation. Here we have a pilot who has never flown the aircraft before, making a take off from probably the most demanding port on the network and things come unstuck. Rather than chiding them on the grounds of “airmanship” a less naive approach is to ask how an experienced crew, albeit in other types, came to grief. My reading of the report is that they were most professional in their handling of the flight, from the nose oleo extension and the take off brief as to what to expect ,to the handling of the subsequent emergency. One question I would ask of a psychologist is what role would the company’s continual tail strike message have to play in the event – over compensation by the pilot in its avoidance?
I find it interesting that D P Davies in “Handling the Big Jets” says……For psychological reasons even the final simulator check can never satisfactorily take the place of the aeroplane. It is particularly disturbing to read of those training organisations who are attempting to do virtually all training and testing on the simulator. It is also difficult to accept that pilots themselves will be satisfied with so little flight experience.
Might be a reason here to take a look at the Airbus common qualification perhaps.
I find it interesting that D P Davies in “Handling the Big Jets” says……For psychological reasons even the final simulator check can never satisfactorily take the place of the aeroplane. It is particularly disturbing to read of those training organisations who are attempting to do virtually all training and testing on the simulator. It is also difficult to accept that pilots themselves will be satisfied with so little flight experience.
Might be a reason here to take a look at the Airbus common qualification perhaps.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to disagree; the handling of the return was a badly analysed.
The best option was to land on the longest runway available without auto-brake and using as few braking as possible in order to transfer the deceleration onto the reversers. As such they would have walked away from it.
Under CAVOK conditions the A 340 is very well equipped to shoot a non-precision approach and bring the aircraft right in slot for landing on the 4400 m. Any pro with some common sense, can see that immediately. The LDA numbers from QRH were not valid under the given circumstances and on top of that wrongly interpreted. Maybe Davies should have elaborated a bit on that. One can argue for days on the legal aspects of the interpretation of those nombers but common sense would wipe sush a discussion from the table.
The reason for that is that EK does not want to spend any money on decent simulator training and does not have a good non-normal management model. You can not expect Airbus to do that for you. It's common sence not to use autobrakes with a crippled gear.
Also on the low thrust ratio of the A 340 the report wrongly states that they increased the thrust by going no bleed. They did not; they went no bleed in order to reduce EGT and increase the assumed temp for commercial reasons only.
The recover from this f***-up however was excellent with loads of luck on their side.
The report is a publicity stunt from the SAA and UAE CAA and their subtle attempt to blame Airbus. Terms like the award winning Airline do not belong in this report and undermine the credibility of the investigators.
May I add that the report is only 68 pages and there are no transcripts related to information that played an essential role in the decision making process.
The A 340 is a fine aeroplane and you have to f**k it up with inadequate training to get into sush a sh**.
For years EK has been making a mockery of other Airlines during their CRM training sessions. Today EK is the role model of how not to do things.
The best option was to land on the longest runway available without auto-brake and using as few braking as possible in order to transfer the deceleration onto the reversers. As such they would have walked away from it.
Under CAVOK conditions the A 340 is very well equipped to shoot a non-precision approach and bring the aircraft right in slot for landing on the 4400 m. Any pro with some common sense, can see that immediately. The LDA numbers from QRH were not valid under the given circumstances and on top of that wrongly interpreted. Maybe Davies should have elaborated a bit on that. One can argue for days on the legal aspects of the interpretation of those nombers but common sense would wipe sush a discussion from the table.
The reason for that is that EK does not want to spend any money on decent simulator training and does not have a good non-normal management model. You can not expect Airbus to do that for you. It's common sence not to use autobrakes with a crippled gear.
Also on the low thrust ratio of the A 340 the report wrongly states that they increased the thrust by going no bleed. They did not; they went no bleed in order to reduce EGT and increase the assumed temp for commercial reasons only.
The recover from this f***-up however was excellent with loads of luck on their side.
The report is a publicity stunt from the SAA and UAE CAA and their subtle attempt to blame Airbus. Terms like the award winning Airline do not belong in this report and undermine the credibility of the investigators.
May I add that the report is only 68 pages and there are no transcripts related to information that played an essential role in the decision making process.
The A 340 is a fine aeroplane and you have to f**k it up with inadequate training to get into sush a sh**.
For years EK has been making a mockery of other Airlines during their CRM training sessions. Today EK is the role model of how not to do things.
Last edited by Streamline; 20th Feb 2006 at 09:01.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final Reports Mounted (FAA-IASA and ICAO)
Mounted on menu at www.iasa.com.au/A6ERN.htm
.
FAA IASA Audit on UAE CAA
.
and
.
ICAO Audit on UAE CAA
.
FAA IASA Audit on UAE CAA
.
and
.
ICAO Audit on UAE CAA
Last edited by Dagger Dirk; 21st Feb 2006 at 17:25.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus F*^&%$***
And what even sucks is that we STILL have trainers telling the guys on line to "place the german cross here"......
Saw this first hand on a recent A345 flight ......
Saw this first hand on a recent A345 flight ......
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Streamline
Far too many contradictions in your post to bother with a reply. The only thing I will say is that they DID walk away from it!
ima birdbrain
May I strongly suggest that a CHFR form is submitted ASAP if this really is the case.That will get far better results than postings on here.
Far too many contradictions in your post to bother with a reply. The only thing I will say is that they DID walk away from it!
ima birdbrain
May I strongly suggest that a CHFR form is submitted ASAP if this really is the case.That will get far better results than postings on here.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BYMONEK
You are right, there are contradictions, but that proves only that I posted from the top of my head and not with the books in front of me and just reacted in a natural way with the culture I had. (Except in this tread on the JAR LDA).
But then again I am having a pragmatic interpretation of the rules. After all I am a pilot and not a lawyer. There are different truths and we all know how they can get twisted by a clever lawyer. A former head of the ICAO performance committee wrote a book about this.
Basically a pilot is what remains when he has forgotten everything.
In other words; how much common sense does he have on his own.
Granted, it turned out that I am a bit more conservative than the regulations….in other words ….a bit more on the safe side and that suits me just fine.
I hope EK will do the same in the future. And yes I did file a CHFR but never got any answer....any idea why?
You are right, there are contradictions, but that proves only that I posted from the top of my head and not with the books in front of me and just reacted in a natural way with the culture I had. (Except in this tread on the JAR LDA).
But then again I am having a pragmatic interpretation of the rules. After all I am a pilot and not a lawyer. There are different truths and we all know how they can get twisted by a clever lawyer. A former head of the ICAO performance committee wrote a book about this.
Basically a pilot is what remains when he has forgotten everything.
In other words; how much common sense does he have on his own.
Granted, it turned out that I am a bit more conservative than the regulations….in other words ….a bit more on the safe side and that suits me just fine.
I hope EK will do the same in the future. And yes I did file a CHFR but never got any answer....any idea why?
Last edited by Streamline; 20th Feb 2006 at 11:56.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding CHFR, anyone who files one will get an acknowledgment that the CHFR has been received along with the personal details but after that you'll get no further feedback. It's designed this way!