EK407 Tailstrike @ ML
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: south east UK
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flex / derate / assumed temp - call it what you will, but it DOES increase engine life and it DOES save real hard money. We had a memo in our airline reminding us to use the correct assumed temp reduction for every take off and the savings quoted were staggering.
Anyhoo - all those advocating full thrust for take off, you still have to do the performance calcs and if you make the same mistake made here and in Halifax with the 747 you are still going to rotate underspeed, still going to drag along the runway with the tail, but with alot more thrust. You will probably get airborne, but then again who knows.
Besides full thrust take offs can also have their own risk. Especially in a light aircraft, so maybe you are just swapping one risk for another, not reducing the overall risk level.
Anyhoo - all those advocating full thrust for take off, you still have to do the performance calcs and if you make the same mistake made here and in Halifax with the 747 you are still going to rotate underspeed, still going to drag along the runway with the tail, but with alot more thrust. You will probably get airborne, but then again who knows.
Besides full thrust take offs can also have their own risk. Especially in a light aircraft, so maybe you are just swapping one risk for another, not reducing the overall risk level.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appears yet another great lesson in safety lost.
EK should begg the crew to remain employed.
Fully understand and never forget the causes of this event.
Fully understand and never forget how the crew handled the aircraft after aware of problem.
My best wishes to all the crew involved, am sure your intentions were all good.
EK should begg the crew to remain employed.
Fully understand and never forget the causes of this event.
Fully understand and never forget how the crew handled the aircraft after aware of problem.
My best wishes to all the crew involved, am sure your intentions were all good.
Flex / derate / assumed temp - call it what you will, but it DOES increase engine life and it DOES save real hard money.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: BNE
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the fate of the airplane?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Age: 70
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
still broken
KANUCK 33 what are you taking about? "condolenses for sacrifical lambs" These pilots are profeessional and well trained people. They made a mistake and nearly killed all the passengers and crew. I will not mension anything about how much it will cost to fix because I don't see it as an issue. Peoples lifes are what we deal with, however as a ground engineer and I am the of person who will have to fix this very damaged aircraft. I take full resposabilty for my work and I expect others in this industry to do the same.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take full resposabilty for my work and I expect others in this industry to do the same.
If mechanics err, training is inadequate, managers impose stupid sops, manufacturors mess up, they assume responsibility (some hardly ever though ) and pilots have their bums at risk.
Don't go down that road ...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somehwere on the planet
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Donal Barber
If you fired every professional in this industry that made a mistake you would soon not have anybody left. We are human and there for make errors. The trick is to have a system in place that traps errors before they become accidents. thta is why you engineers have dual inspections and the MM, and why there are two cockpit crew and SOP's. Firing the crew solves nothing and allows this error to happen again. The question should be what is wrong with the system and procedures in place that allowed a highly experienced and professional crew to make an error that did not get caught.
If you fail to address that then its just a matter of time before it happens again to someone else.
If you fired every professional in this industry that made a mistake you would soon not have anybody left. We are human and there for make errors. The trick is to have a system in place that traps errors before they become accidents. thta is why you engineers have dual inspections and the MM, and why there are two cockpit crew and SOP's. Firing the crew solves nothing and allows this error to happen again. The question should be what is wrong with the system and procedures in place that allowed a highly experienced and professional crew to make an error that did not get caught.
If you fail to address that then its just a matter of time before it happens again to someone else.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757 driver
Thanks, I'm happy to accept your word (rather than the motherhood statements such as "flex saves money" hitherto offered). If running the engines for a minute or so at the upper end if their performence capability does have such a dramatic affect on their life, then so be it. I wondered if/how many here actually had access to any numbers, and were just doing it because they were told to.
TBALYX et al, well said. (spoken as someone who has experienced/been the victim of the preferred ME management style).
We had a memo in our airline reminding us to use the correct assumed temp reduction for every take off and the savings quoted were staggering.
TBALYX et al, well said. (spoken as someone who has experienced/been the victim of the preferred ME management style).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Tbaylx" said what I wanted to say, only more eloquently. If there is a systemic problem with the bus departure process then it needs to be addressed. I'm an EK Boeing FO and I can tell you that the captains I fly with double check my work before departure, and then I check it again. Even so, anyone can make a mistake.
I'm sorry that these chaps got the sack.
I'm sorry that these chaps got the sack.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tbaylx
As SLF having read this thread I would not wish to fly on EK in the future unless I felt assured that the airline had seriously acknowledged and addressed the many safety issues whch have been raised by concerned professionals in some 585 posts. I am referring to not just pre-flight data compilation cross checking and entry, but also to the apparent lack of opportunity to access online flight planning data in a timely manner, eg prior to leaving the hotel. I am also concerned to read about the poor T&C's for crew, including crew rest issues, and layover times.
Paul
As SLF having read this thread I would not wish to fly on EK in the future unless I felt assured that the airline had seriously acknowledged and addressed the many safety issues whch have been raised by concerned professionals in some 585 posts. I am referring to not just pre-flight data compilation cross checking and entry, but also to the apparent lack of opportunity to access online flight planning data in a timely manner, eg prior to leaving the hotel. I am also concerned to read about the poor T&C's for crew, including crew rest issues, and layover times.
Paul
Last edited by paulg; 9th Apr 2009 at 07:18. Reason: typos
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somehwere on the planet
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul,
I can assure you that some of the issues that you bring up are problems at all airlines and not just EK. Often proper rest and days off are lost at the whims of management that really don't understand the effects of long haul flying on rest/sleep cycles.
Since EK has been very quiet on the whole MEL incident i can only hope that they are in the process of completing an internal investigation in coordination with the australians and the results of which will be taken into account and our procedures modified to prevent that sort of thing from happening again.
Should the investigation show that it was a crew input error it will not be the first and certainly not the last time that has occured in transport catagory aircraft operations. It may be time the the industry as a whole come up with a better mousetrap with regards to performance data entry.
I can assure you that some of the issues that you bring up are problems at all airlines and not just EK. Often proper rest and days off are lost at the whims of management that really don't understand the effects of long haul flying on rest/sleep cycles.
Since EK has been very quiet on the whole MEL incident i can only hope that they are in the process of completing an internal investigation in coordination with the australians and the results of which will be taken into account and our procedures modified to prevent that sort of thing from happening again.
Should the investigation show that it was a crew input error it will not be the first and certainly not the last time that has occured in transport catagory aircraft operations. It may be time the the industry as a whole come up with a better mousetrap with regards to performance data entry.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sandy beach
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This just another opinion, but I believe the following,
The flex/assumed temp on engines does save money, and is a safe operating program. It is not the issue that needs changing.
These airplanes are operating safely around the world every single minute using this function and have been doing so for decades.
This incident seems to be just a very unfortunate and isolated mistake by two very capable crew. The laptop SOP calculation when done correctly should and do trap errors. This is not to say that a revised system is not forthcoming but I find the system and SOP's to be reasonable. The process to input, SOP's and adherence to SOP's is the issue. Distraction and interruption in the flight deck pre departure also needs addressing.
I'm sure every pilot will now pay closer attention to the TO calculation and reduced thrust/flex numbers. This is a positive net result. I wish the crew a better future ahead.
The flex/assumed temp on engines does save money, and is a safe operating program. It is not the issue that needs changing.
These airplanes are operating safely around the world every single minute using this function and have been doing so for decades.
This incident seems to be just a very unfortunate and isolated mistake by two very capable crew. The laptop SOP calculation when done correctly should and do trap errors. This is not to say that a revised system is not forthcoming but I find the system and SOP's to be reasonable. The process to input, SOP's and adherence to SOP's is the issue. Distraction and interruption in the flight deck pre departure also needs addressing.
I'm sure every pilot will now pay closer attention to the TO calculation and reduced thrust/flex numbers. This is a positive net result. I wish the crew a better future ahead.
Last edited by Saltaire; 9th Apr 2009 at 09:17.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
Well, clearly we have the answer to that question. The crew is apparently history and it doesn't appear as though a report will be issued as to what happened.
Since this would be classified as an accident, and not an incident (significant damage occurred to the aircraft structure) wouldn't there automatically be an official investigation by the ATSB? Complete with preliminary (possibly interim) and final report?
One of the criteria for an occurrence to be classified as an accident is:
Originally Posted by ICAO Annex 13
[...] the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:
- adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft [...]
- adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft [...]
Bernd
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since this would be classified as an accident, and not an incident (significant damage occurred to the aircraft structure) wouldn't there automatically be an official investigation by the ATSB? Complete with preliminary (possibly interim) and final report?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bowser BC
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2nd Post
Donal you said it yourself "These pilots are profeessional and well trained people."
I am sure they maliciously did not try to bend the aircraft and put lives in jeopardy.
I believe there maybe other contributing factors (I am speculating).
We are human ("to err IS human" remember). We are not perfect.
I am sure they maliciously did not try to bend the aircraft and put lives in jeopardy.
I believe there maybe other contributing factors (I am speculating).
We are human ("to err IS human" remember). We are not perfect.
Bernd;
I hope so, Bernd. So far, nothing has been published regarding the details of the accident. I can't recall if it is ICAO or merely NTSB policy that a preliminary report must be published within 30 days of an accident. What is of course disturbing is the way the crew has, apparently, been handled. There is nothing here nor elsewhere to refute the rumour that the crew has been fired. In fact the entire incident has gone silent, which is not how flight safety work is done, as we know.
Since this would be classified as an accident, and not an incident (significant damage occurred to the aircraft structure) wouldn't there automatically be an official investigation by the ATSB? Complete with preliminary (possibly interim) and final report?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: S.O.E.
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This definitely falls within the definition of an accident.
As said earlier, while the ATSB have access to the CVR and QAR/FDR, that's not the whole story. All that tells is the mechanics of what happened on the night. And yes - I'm sure the crew did make errors.
The ATSB will be hamstrung in getting to the root cause, because our beloved employer (Emirates aka Dubai Inc.) will never release any data on systemic, training or management issues that actually led to the final "piece" in the chain of events.
The crew have been made the scapegoats yet again. Crew retraining, and acceptance by Emirates of corporate responsibility would have been a far more mature approach here.
AAR, TCAS and ED should fall on their swords.
As said earlier, while the ATSB have access to the CVR and QAR/FDR, that's not the whole story. All that tells is the mechanics of what happened on the night. And yes - I'm sure the crew did make errors.
The ATSB will be hamstrung in getting to the root cause, because our beloved employer (Emirates aka Dubai Inc.) will never release any data on systemic, training or management issues that actually led to the final "piece" in the chain of events.
The crew have been made the scapegoats yet again. Crew retraining, and acceptance by Emirates of corporate responsibility would have been a far more mature approach here.
AAR, TCAS and ED should fall on their swords.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a layman, was aircrew but not a driver, the situation with engine life, and operating with maximum power can be clearly seen in the situation of commercial flying and military flying.
In the military, where often it is performance that is sought, the engine life even of the same type and brand of engine, is greatly different between an engine which is operated commercially than one used by the military. However even in a military situation the use of maximum power is restricted to situations where it is absolutely required. In spite of that situation, engines on service aircraft never get to the time hung on the wing with a civilian one and are often changed long before the normal operating limits.
Again to the layman, it is not a requirement to run at maximum power, I mean after all when looks at different models of the same airframe, but one running a different brand of engine to another, there also a different level of power level for take off, does this mean that the available power on the lower powered airplane makes it unsafe. The answer must be that the the airplane if operated within its envelope is quite safe.
My experience with accidents, is that they are seldom caused by one factor.
An example.
Aircraft overloaded for what ever reason, but unknown to the crew.
The crew perhaps tired because of turn around times and or poor sleeping arrangements.
A miscalculation on the take off requirements either as an combination or part of the above.
A lack of understanding about what was going on, my understanding is that the tail on this flight contacted the runway three times, and the associated problems that caused, including the lack of acceleration.
The lack of understanding by management of their directions.
Yes it is easy to blame the crew, but some of the factors I am sure in this case where either beyond their control or not in their knowledge sector.
The operator has "sacked" the crew, but has it fixed the problem, the answer I suspect is NO.
The crew who have departed, will now be better pilots because of this incident, and I would have been using them to improve and bring about better standards than showing them the door. Perhaps the answer is that the wrong people were sacked.
Hope they turn up with a better job with a better airline.
Regards
Col
In the military, where often it is performance that is sought, the engine life even of the same type and brand of engine, is greatly different between an engine which is operated commercially than one used by the military. However even in a military situation the use of maximum power is restricted to situations where it is absolutely required. In spite of that situation, engines on service aircraft never get to the time hung on the wing with a civilian one and are often changed long before the normal operating limits.
Again to the layman, it is not a requirement to run at maximum power, I mean after all when looks at different models of the same airframe, but one running a different brand of engine to another, there also a different level of power level for take off, does this mean that the available power on the lower powered airplane makes it unsafe. The answer must be that the the airplane if operated within its envelope is quite safe.
My experience with accidents, is that they are seldom caused by one factor.
An example.
Aircraft overloaded for what ever reason, but unknown to the crew.
The crew perhaps tired because of turn around times and or poor sleeping arrangements.
A miscalculation on the take off requirements either as an combination or part of the above.
A lack of understanding about what was going on, my understanding is that the tail on this flight contacted the runway three times, and the associated problems that caused, including the lack of acceleration.
The lack of understanding by management of their directions.
Yes it is easy to blame the crew, but some of the factors I am sure in this case where either beyond their control or not in their knowledge sector.
The operator has "sacked" the crew, but has it fixed the problem, the answer I suspect is NO.
The crew who have departed, will now be better pilots because of this incident, and I would have been using them to improve and bring about better standards than showing them the door. Perhaps the answer is that the wrong people were sacked.
Hope they turn up with a better job with a better airline.
Regards
Col