EK407 Tailstrike @ ML

[deltayankee]

I guess Emirates has a big advertising budget, how else can you explain the lack of any media interest.
Throws into relief what was happening not so long ago to QF, when even a technical delay was enough to generate a "troubled airline" headline.

Doesn't ring true. Newspapers massacre pretty much everyone, advertisers or not (glossy magazines are different). How many Emirates ads were there in your paper today? Much more likely explanation for the low media interest was the fact that nobody was hurt.

[Capt Kremin]

To a point, yes. However a few months ago during the latest QF feeding frenzy, technical delays somehow became major stories. A lot of it was due to the last vestiges of the engineers dispute... but it really got ridiculous.

[limelight]

Media? what Media

For those in the northern parts, anything concerning QF gets headlines in the Media here. The very interesting thing abount this accident is that bugga all has been said about the potential outcomes in the mainstream media, both press and TV.Not one report in the monday Melbourne press. The EK spindoctors either have worked very hard, or been very very lucky. When the report comes out we will watch with interest. In the meantime, lets wait for the report. Should not be long.

[OverRun]

Spin? - what spin

And it is not just the well-oiled Australian Emirates PR team. The Emirates PPRUNE spin team are smoothly working away. I'm embarrassed to say that White Knight got me fooled

THE FACTS about the crew...... They are still here in MELBOURNE (this very minute, late on sunday evening).... EK has not whisked the crew away, and they were dealing with CASA TODAY..

I will not say anything else out of respect for my colleagues - two of whom I have flown with in the past and know to be competent pilots..

[HarryMann]

When I flew Valiants we had a check time to 100 knots to make sure accel. was OK. If speed was down we aborted, did once, we went off the end, slowly. That check might well have saved Emirates at MEL.

This topic came up in the Madrid Barajas t/o accident too, when it was intially stated an engine failure occurred... rule of thumb checks or stopwatch checks to a nominal 80 or 100kts have been proposed after many 'fail to accelerate properly' accidents/incidents

[CONF iture]

Originally Posted by helen-damnation

To err is human, to really it up just add a computer/stress/more humans/time change/management etc etc

The procedure for the performances as you describe it looks pretty standard in the industry and effectively, it doesn’t take much for an error to enter the equation.
As earlier reminded by James7 MK Airlines flight 1602 tried to take off from Halifax with the figures for a 240 tonnes GW when actually the 747 was almost 50% FIFTY heavier !

So a mistake as Getzo put it is always possible :
“Could ZFW instead of TOW been used in LPC for the T/O performance calculations?”

Especially when, as reminded by fourgolds crews fly airplanes as different as the 332 and the 345 in weight perspective.

[deSitter]

Could be we're looking at spectacular piloting, dealing with cargo shift that prevented proper rotation and landing configuration.

-drl

[Dysag]

deSitter

I don't believe cargo shift. The hold is short anyway so not much effect.

Sounds like clutching at straws to defend a human crew.

[Dapeewee]

I was on that plane on my way back to holland. Pretty scary experience I must say (allmost crapped myself). The pilot announced there was a "small technical problem". Was glad to be back on the ground.

[glob99]

How far off would the weight have to be to only hit Vr at 12000' ?

[James7]

Take Off Acceleration

This is an extract taken from the MK Airline flight 1602.

Quote:-
Also of interest was an incident that occurred on 18 July 2002, when an MK Airlines Limited B747-200 had a take-off performance incident in Sapporo, Japan. The first officer completed the take-off data card using the runway analysis charts for the applicable runway. The captain checked the card and found it to be correct. The take-off weight, as indicated on the card, was written as 258 000 kg, rather than the correct weight of 358 000 kg. Gross error check speeds had also been set using 258 000 kg. The loadmaster presented the load sheet to the captain for checking and he signed it. The load sheet indicated 358 000 kg, but the difference in weight was not detected. The airspeeds and EPRs were set for 258 000 kg. During the early stages of the take-off roll, the flight crew noted that the aircraft was not accelerating normally, and the take off was rejected at approximately 30 to 40 knots. On review of the take-off data card, the error was detected and a new take-off data card was completed using the correct weight. The subsequent take-off was uneventful." - end quote.

The report also believed that the crew of 1602 were sufficiently fatigued not to realise the lack of acceleration.

I am not suggesting in anyway that something similar happened here. I am a firm believer that the study of historical incidents and accidents enhances Flight Safety.

This is a link to the:- Boeing 747-412 9V-SMT, flight SQ286, tail strike during take-off, Auckland International Airport, 12 March 2003.

Tail strike due to fact that Vr was calculated 33 knots less than the required 163 kts.

Aviation Reports[G]skins%2ftaicAviation%2fskin_aviation


I would hope that some initial report would be out soon. Someone knows for sure.

[Smilin_Ed]

Tail strike due to fact that Vr was calculated 33 knots less than the required 163 kts.

It seems to me that someone should have noticed a 30 knot difference. After all, that's 20 percent of the correct number. Had they never flown that type of aircraft before that day?

[denabol]

A bit of media did get through

Captn Kremin,

I was surprised Crikey didn't have a go, but I see their usual aviation writer Ben Sandilands went for it in his Crikey blog. Interesting comment about the ATSB. Surely they know what really happened by now.

Emirates flight EK 407 was the most dangerous non fatal accident to a jet airliner in Australia - Plane Talking

[fox niner]

Hmm...
Maybe one of the engines ingested a part of the ILS antenna structure, when it plowed through the grass beyond the runway.

[CONF iture]

Originally Posted by James7

Boeing 747-412 9V-SMT, flight SQ286, tail strike during take-off, Auckland International Airport, 12 March 2003.
Tail strike due to fact that Vr was calculated 33 knots less than the required 163 kts.

Interesting to note :

The tail scrape marks along the runway surface from 9V-SMT started at about 55% of the runway length and ended about 68% of its length (12000 feet)

In the EK407 case, we may assume the tail scrape marks are on the very last portion of the runway as the airplane was still rolling at this time, so probably no attempt here to rotate at a too low calculated Vr, but almost an obvious indication of some kind of thrust deficit.

Could it be justified by simply inverting 2 numbers and entering 72 when the appropriate calculated FLEX was in fact 27 ?

Again ... just a possible scenario ...

[ExSp33db1rd]

After all, that's 20 percent of the correct number. Had they never flown that type of aircraft before that day?

Not exactly NO, but ........ the Captain was recently off the A 340, so the incorrect numbers sounded familiar to him.

Not an excuse, but just one of the holes in the cheese.

[ptr120]

putting asside the debate on the cause of this for a moment, how and where will the aircraft be repaired? Slow & low ferry back to DXB or fly in the specialist equipment and parts required to do this in MEL?

[SMOC]

It seems to me that someone should have noticed a 30 knot difference. After all, that's 20 percent of the correct number. Had they never flown that type of aircraft before that day?

In the SIA event a take-off weight transcription error, which remained undetected, led to the miscalculation of the take-off data, which in turn resulted in a low thrust setting and excessively slow take-off reference speeds. The system defences did not ensure the errors were detected, and the aeroplane flight management system itself did not provide a final defence against mismatched information being programmed into it.

CX changed their ACARS RTOW input page after several reports of entering ZFW instead of TOW into the available field. I believe one A330 even got airborne, however the difference in ZFW and TOW was less than 20T and the resulting RTOW had the same max flex temp for both weights.

Because the FMS performance entry used ZFW crew became accustomed to using the ZFW figure when using the "box".

Also blasting around in light weight A330s all day and occasionally flying A340s and even less flying on A346s meant a typical A330 TOW was often similar to a 340 ZFW.

The ACARS RTOW now requires crew to enter both ZFW and TOW, the RTOW does a cross check, if the figures aren't reasonable you get a check data message.

Simply human factors, rubbish in the box you get rubbish out, you need well written SOPs to prevent the swiss cheese event.

[chainsaw]

....how and where will the aircraft be repaired? Slow & low ferry back to DXB or fly in the specialist equipment and parts required to do this in MEL?

How? Probably with a bit of difficulty by the looks of things, if the reports of the damage are correct. Getting a place to put it into to do the repairs will probably also be a fairly 'challenging' I'd imagine.

Where? Melbourne - the only way that aircraft will fly out of Melbourne is: a) after it's been repaired and signed-off as airworthy, or b) as cargo, once it's been disassembled.

The questions are good ones though.

[phoenix62]

I was a passenger on this flight,

I'm not a pilot but I have made moer than 100 flights in several types of aircraft as a passenger.

I was in the rear of the cabin at seat 34C and I watched the takeoff from the seat monitor via the forward camera. The aircraft seemed to rotate a very late and run out of runway. We did strike the end of the runway and there were visible sparks from the window near me. I did not see any engine issues from my side of the cabin.

The rate of climb once free flight was achieved seemed very low. There were some very distressed passengers and the crew didn't seem to be much better! I still have the fingernail marks in my arm from the lady sat next to me!

The captain admitted a technical fault after being in the air for 10 minutes and the flight over water to dump fuel seemed to take forever. I must admit I was more worried about landing as I thought the landing gear might have been damaged.

The landing happened without incident and the flight deck should be commended for that.

I must say it felt to me like there wasn't enough thrust to get the aircraft into the air. It took too long to get up to speed and then by the time we had got up to speed there was no runway left! The tail scrape as you call it did happened three times to my memory.

I must say I'm glad things happened they way they did and no injuries occurred. I am very interested in the investigation report. I don't think it was pilot error and more likely misinformation given or a technical fault with the aircraft. I wish the pilot could have slammed the brakes on before the point of no return but thats wishful thinking.