EK407 Tailstrike @ ML
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since no-one else has picked up on this, I come back to a point raised by mig3: "use of reduced thrust on take-off - noise abatement".
I may be (I am) out of touch, but I can't remember take-off thrust routinely being influenced by noise abatement. Cut-back is another thing, but start-of-roll?
Not only that, I think it could be counter-productive, as it's best to be as high as possible over the measuring point. Comments?
I may be (I am) out of touch, but I can't remember take-off thrust routinely being influenced by noise abatement. Cut-back is another thing, but start-of-roll?
Not only that, I think it could be counter-productive, as it's best to be as high as possible over the measuring point. Comments?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The hairdressers!
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold Baggage
The actual mass of PAX, cabin baggage and cargo has already been mentioned.
Do EK use a notional or actual mass for checked baggage? (I'd be very surprised if this alone would "upset" a 340....
)
C o' G
Do EK use a notional or actual mass for checked baggage? (I'd be very surprised if this alone would "upset" a 340....
)C o' G
Dairyground;
The timing method was discussed, if I recall, as a sidebar in the Madrid Spanair accident thread. Most agreed that if the takeoff run was longer than about 45 to 50 seconds, it was starting to get into outlier territory.
To be meaningful, timing to V1 would involve a number of factors as we know and, as has been pointed out, would require more accurate weight information than the industry, including the regulators, seem to be presently satisfied with.
A long time ago when designing the FOQA program, we decided to include a takeoff distance calculation for each takeoff. The IRS groundspeed parameter, (sampled once per second), is converted to feet-per-second and summed until the liftoff point. We do the same for landing distance.
Though not accurate to the foot because of the 1" time slices used, it presents a sufficiently accurate snapshot of takeoff performance. Most but not all of our aircraft LFL's, (logical frame layouts) are programmed to record wheel speed (in meters-per-second). The parameter is also not 100% reliable - so we use the groundspeed method. This collected information could then be married with the data you suggest in your post and then compared with the numbers that the "manufacturer sales people provide".
All this requires trained resources which no airline seems willing to provide these days but the matter itself does have data solutions. The fact that the airline doesn't use any of this data in any meaningful or productive way is beyond our control but the information is there for each takeoff to provide a full picture of the fleet's takeoff performance over long periods of time in varying conditions off different runways.
I have to say that Airbus provides far more information for the contaminated runway case for both takeoff and landing which includes the use of the CRFI, (Canadian Runway Friction Index) tables for landing, than other manufacturers I've seen but that's a bit of thread drift.
Roll distance is not so easily measured, but could require extra hardware or modification of the software of existing systems. A conceptually simple system would be to adopt automotive technology and count revolutions of the landing gear wheels.
To drift slightly further from the main topic, one post a few pages back suggested that measuring time or distance to speed could give a reasonably accurate estimate of the weight of cargo and passengers, and averaged over a large number of flights be used to update the average wight of passengers and their carry-on baggage. Could the same information already be extracted from correlation of data captured by the flight data recorder and the loadsheets?
To drift slightly further from the main topic, one post a few pages back suggested that measuring time or distance to speed could give a reasonably accurate estimate of the weight of cargo and passengers, and averaged over a large number of flights be used to update the average wight of passengers and their carry-on baggage. Could the same information already be extracted from correlation of data captured by the flight data recorder and the loadsheets?
To be meaningful, timing to V1 would involve a number of factors as we know and, as has been pointed out, would require more accurate weight information than the industry, including the regulators, seem to be presently satisfied with.
A long time ago when designing the FOQA program, we decided to include a takeoff distance calculation for each takeoff. The IRS groundspeed parameter, (sampled once per second), is converted to feet-per-second and summed until the liftoff point. We do the same for landing distance.
Though not accurate to the foot because of the 1" time slices used, it presents a sufficiently accurate snapshot of takeoff performance. Most but not all of our aircraft LFL's, (logical frame layouts) are programmed to record wheel speed (in meters-per-second). The parameter is also not 100% reliable - so we use the groundspeed method. This collected information could then be married with the data you suggest in your post and then compared with the numbers that the "manufacturer sales people provide".
All this requires trained resources which no airline seems willing to provide these days but the matter itself does have data solutions. The fact that the airline doesn't use any of this data in any meaningful or productive way is beyond our control but the information is there for each takeoff to provide a full picture of the fleet's takeoff performance over long periods of time in varying conditions off different runways.
I have to say that Airbus provides far more information for the contaminated runway case for both takeoff and landing which includes the use of the CRFI, (Canadian Runway Friction Index) tables for landing, than other manufacturers I've seen but that's a bit of thread drift.
To be meaningful, timing to V1 would involve a number of factors as we know and, as has been pointed out, would require more accurate weight information than the industry, including the regulators, seem to be presently satisfied with.
Squiffy- Yes, I think the travelling public is on the receiving end of some very good work over the decades. I think in flight safety work, some sources of "comfort" are justified, such justifications to be found mainly in the data. For example, the data has justified ETOPS work yet serious, (in my, and others' view) questions remain regarding an actual vs. planned diversion under worst circumstances, (pressurization failure, arctic/polar/trans-Pacific routes, etc). Like the case under discussion, reliability has justified the approach taken. And of course, we all know and accept that the risk of failure is always present but has been examined (and hopefully constantly re-examined).
Exactly PJ2. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it all comes down to the actuarial tables. If 1 airframe with all souls is lost at an interval of greater than 10^x flight hours, then that's acceptable.
It might not be correct, or moral (who can tell at what point this happens); but it's acceptable data.
It might not be correct, or moral (who can tell at what point this happens); but it's acceptable data.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since we've drifted into the mention of ETOPS - (warning: thread drift of sorts; but something dear to the heart for many EK pilots) - I would like someone to quantify the risk in placing the captain (and on some flights, he is the the only captain on board) in a "rest" area about as far as it is possible to be placed from the cockpit, [which in a 773, is a considerable distance - further, in fact, than the Wright brothers' first flight!] as it is on only EK's 777 fleet, and to a only slightly lesser degree, on EK's A345s and 380s.
(The " " surround the word "rest" for reasons we won't go into here, but mention torpedos, U-Boats and the lack of anywhere where rest can be taken in a sitting position to any EK 777 pilot and all will be explained.)
Others have mentioned in earlier threads the difficulty for a captain or FO to get back to the cockpit from the rear cabin past milling passengers and especially meal trolleys in normal circumstances. To do so after a decompresssion or a cabin fire would be near impossible, at least in good time to have any say in the immediate and not so immediate decisions on how the emergency (sorry - "non normal") is to be handled.
Comments from the panel of experts?
(The " " surround the word "rest" for reasons we won't go into here, but mention torpedos, U-Boats and the lack of anywhere where rest can be taken in a sitting position to any EK 777 pilot and all will be explained.)
Others have mentioned in earlier threads the difficulty for a captain or FO to get back to the cockpit from the rear cabin past milling passengers and especially meal trolleys in normal circumstances. To do so after a decompresssion or a cabin fire would be near impossible, at least in good time to have any say in the immediate and not so immediate decisions on how the emergency (sorry - "non normal") is to be handled.
Comments from the panel of experts?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MTOW
Makes no difference where the Captain takes his rest or how long it takes him to get to the cockpit in case of an emergency.
The point is,there should always be aircrew on the flight deck that can handle any emergency without the help of the Captain.
Makes no difference where the Captain takes his rest or how long it takes him to get to the cockpit in case of an emergency.
The point is,there should always be aircrew on the flight deck that can handle any emergency without the help of the Captain.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a wild guess on my part, Whiskery, but I'm assuming you're an FO. (Or senior managment, which your profile would suggest you are not.)
I'm sure MTOW was implying no insult of any FO's ability or professionalism, and nor am I, but if you don't understand the rather pressing desire of the man who signed for the aeroplane and who will be held responsible for the outcome of the "non normal", whatever than may be, to take part in at least the subsequent execution and decision making after the problem has occurred, you come from a very different mental space to the one I come from.
I'm sure MTOW was implying no insult of any FO's ability or professionalism, and nor am I, but if you don't understand the rather pressing desire of the man who signed for the aeroplane and who will be held responsible for the outcome of the "non normal", whatever than may be, to take part in at least the subsequent execution and decision making after the problem has occurred, you come from a very different mental space to the one I come from.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North America
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ISO?
Personally I think that the most valuable comment in this series was that of Dairyground - what an eye-opener. We aren’t the only safety obsessed people, and it sounds as if the aviator sector may need to think more widely. What is ISO9000, and why don’t I know about it? Dairyground?
This extends to not just well-documented work processes required in aviation authority regs like Part type SOP's and checklists, but also the regular corporate functions where things can fall through the cracks (e.g. communication between finance and maintenance). I don't have the full list of ISO 9000 registered firms, but I know UPS Air is ISO 9001 certified, as is United's Engine Maintenance Division.
In terms of its specific application to this thread: In addressing takeoff performance, under ISO 9000 a company should address the full end-to-end process, including some issues raised here that go beyond the preflight and checklists: e.g. availability and distribution of laptops, information available prior to crew pickup, thrust and weight calculations, speed checks, etc. Would checks have been implemented for catching erroneous figures or calculations under ISO 9000 if that's not addressed? Should be, but depends on the effective feedback and input from the parties involved.
The feedback from the accident review will probably serve as an interesting after the fact "audit."
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For another perspective from a cynic who's been exposed to 'ISO9000' certification (in a non-aviation industry); it's paper pusher's heaven: Basically you must document your 'process', and show compliance to that process. The process it's self can be as broken as you like, just so long as you have a (documented) process (and follow it). Fixing the process becomes a complete nightmare. It's the sort of thing that makes some people a lot of money whilst getting in the way of real work 
I will however grant that the implementation may have been badly broken, and the company has since gone bust..
I will however grant that the implementation may have been badly broken, and the company has since gone bust..
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did they jump, or were they pushed?
"Resigned" or more likely: "Both of you can resign, and in which case, we will gladly accept it, or don't resign, and we will sack both of you".
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pressure bulkhead damaged
Latest info from Dubai
Composite pressure bulkhead is damaged along with 3 skin panels, lots of frames and stringers.
Airbus repair, possibly a complete bulkhead replacement.
This bird won't go anywhere for some time
Composite pressure bulkhead is damaged along with 3 skin panels, lots of frames and stringers.
Airbus repair, possibly a complete bulkhead replacement.
This bird won't go anywhere for some time
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Zulu-8
Age: 62
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If politicians scr#w up, they ass u me "responsibility", demission and get a thefty retirement for life. The taxpayer pays the mess.
If bankers scr#w up, they get huge bonusses and retirement for life. The taxpayer pays the mess.
If local talent around here scr#w up, they get shiny awards, a house and retirement for life. The expats clean up behind and the fuel-taxpayer pays the mess.
If pilots screw up, they get convicted and fired. They have to come up for the mess themselves, even for the one the constructors, companies and regulators helped creating.
Any pattern here??
If bankers scr#w up, they get huge bonusses and retirement for life. The taxpayer pays the mess.
If local talent around here scr#w up, they get shiny awards, a house and retirement for life. The expats clean up behind and the fuel-taxpayer pays the mess.
If pilots screw up, they get convicted and fired. They have to come up for the mess themselves, even for the one the constructors, companies and regulators helped creating.
Any pattern here??
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to see if I understood it correctly, and to give an image to some thoughts of previous posters.
It doesn't stop an error from being input, but given the RWY distance punched at the FMGC/MCDU and all the calcs for the V speeds (temps, wx, weights etc),
you just need 2 more parameters:
- Speed trend vector
- a way of measuring ground distance elapsed(GPS derived or wheel sensor)
Then its easy to determine if you'll be able to reach V1 inside min safe stopping distance, or at least if you'll get airborne at the very end of the RWY without taking the antenas with you. You just have to keep it above the green line.
Go easy on the flack!
GD&L
It doesn't stop an error from being input, but given the RWY distance punched at the FMGC/MCDU and all the calcs for the V speeds (temps, wx, weights etc),
you just need 2 more parameters:
- Speed trend vector
- a way of measuring ground distance elapsed(GPS derived or wheel sensor)
Then its easy to determine if you'll be able to reach V1 inside min safe stopping distance, or at least if you'll get airborne at the very end of the RWY without taking the antenas with you. You just have to keep it above the green line.
Go easy on the flack!
GD&L